Patiently waiting for Truth

Someone else, maybe @Witness  (forgive me if I'm wrong) mentioned that the GB were putting themselves in the place of Jesus Christ. I think the idea was dismissed. 
However @AlanF comment here :- claiming to exercise the rights and prerogatives of Christ as his empowered representatives. >> 
This is fantastic. It proves the point beyond doubt.  
I don't link on to anyone, just individual comments. And that comment makes a lot of sense to me. 

@JW Insider Thank you for this comical comment above. 
A few quotes "Witnesses are generally very comfortable with their leadership."
Exactly how many people have you asked. Were they just elders that you asked ? 
Quote "Also, among JWs, there is a great appreciation for the good that comes out of association with others of like faith in the brotherhood. "
Yes it is a social club. Well here in UK it definitely is a social club. Hence when a person is disfellowshipped they lose EVERYONE they would normally spend time with.  Also hence, that is what keeps many JW's 'physically in', because of the fear of being totally alone if they left. Shunning keeps people in the JW Org, that is the way the GB / Org rules people's lives. So, no, many JW's are not 'very comfortable with their leadership', but they just don't have a good way out, without being totally 'cut off'.
And judging by feedback I'm getting from within the Org, fornication and divorce is increasing here in the UK. But I will not enlarge on that due to where I get my information. 
The word Apostasy can be argued here for hours, and in fact often is. 
And the GB seem frighten to announce reasons from the platform for why a person is 'No longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses'. 
So no one knows if a person left of their own accord, or was d'fed. 
As for this 'because no one has offered a consistent acceptable replacement yet.'  It is laughable. Just because you don't know exactly what is right, does that mean you don't know what isn't right ?  And doesn't it tell you to wait on God through Christ, instead of burbling on with untrue information ?  
Quote " Of course, the Bible already gives us a guide that shows there are also very serious kinds of apostasy, "
Give us examples please. 
And might your own GB be guilty of some of these ? 

Another person that speaks twaddle ? lots of words that mean nothing / more smoke screen.  @TrueTomHarley
With all that I've been reading about 'those in power' in the Org from 1970 ish onward, it goes to prove without doubt that they were not inspired, nor were they even guided by Holy Spirit. 
Why do you people always have to relate everything to worldly things ? 
If I compared my house to a third world tin slum, then my home is almost perfect.  But if i compare my home to one of those houses the JW Org is selling in London for over one million pounds, then my home isn't so cool. 
That is why you people love to compare your GB and it's Org to the world, so that your GB and it's Org always looks better. If you were brave enough to compare your GB and it's Org to GOD'S HIGH STANDARDS, then you see the many dangerous faults. 
And as for your scripture misquote “To whom else shall we go?   I don't remember reading in God's word, that the answer was, Go to the JW Org. You see how you twist scripture to suit your own means ? 
Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life,
The scripture is concerning JESUS CHRIST, NOT JW ORG. 
Quote "In this case, the “no Santa Claus” is learning that the GB is made up of men who can make mistakes."
I think the Watchtower words were ' make mistakes and err'
So in your eyes does that mean make mistakes and make mistakes  (which makes no sense) 
Or, does it mean make mistakes and deliberately do wrong ?  
Please don't have the wrong kind of 'love' for your GB, that it becomes worship. Because if you do you will be too forgiving, and in so doing you will not 'search all things to see if they are true'.  
On this forum, we have seen this critique a few times. It was clearly claimed by @JOHN BUTLER, who sadly was "DF'd" from the forum. 
I just have to pick up on this point. Firstly it's good to know what happened to him.  So the question is why ?
And secondly @Anna and others, that @JW Insider directly says disfellowshipped, even if he uses the 'safe mode' of inverted commas. 
This, in my opinion, upholds my belief that this forum is run by Elders. 
 

Anna said:
    
Well then, if God didn't appoint Greenlees, how can you think he appointed the others? And which ones do you think that God did appoint? And how would you know?
     
What you've just argued -- correctly, I might add -- is that JW elders are NOT appointed by holy spirit, but by imperfect men who may or may not have properly applied the scriptures.
In particular, you've explained why the JW Governing Body cannot be spirit-appointed -- that they are counterfeits because their claims are false.
But not by holy spirit.
I have: the Governing Body is not appointed by holy spirit.
     
You've completely missed the point.
True, but we are talking about a fundamental doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses: The Governing Body, is God's anointed representative, speaks for God and must be obeyed as God would.
But we've already concluded that the GB is NOT appointed by God, by holy spirit. Rather, its members are appointed by imperfect men, who were in turn appointed by other imperfect men, all the way back to Rutherford. In no case can it be shown that holy spirit acted upon the ones doing the appointing, or that the appointments were done strictly according to scriptural requirements.
     
Done: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/forums/topic/85914-governing-body-member-albert-schroeder-denies-the-bible-applies-to-jehovahs-witnesses/
     
Yes, even Bowen created a good deal of beneficial publicity.
     
Why? I know a great deal of what has been going on behind the scenes.
     
Theoretical exercises are all well and good, but the many court cases where the sordid details of the perpetrator's actions, along with the active covering up done by JW elders, mostly at the direction of the Service Department, prove that JW policy and practice leaves much to be desired, and is often outright criminal. This was all so clearly exposed in the ARC proceedings.
An opinion backed up by ARC and multiple court cases.
     
The point is about APPOINTMENT by holy spirit. Your reading a book and trying to apply the author's instructions does not in any sense mean that the author has directed you. Following her written directions, and her actively directing you, are completely different things. It's the difference between having Julia Child's cookbook in your kitchen and having Julia Child herself supervising you. Capiche?

Arauna said:
     
As usual, your comment is nonsensical personal opinion.
It's far from claptrap. You claim that merely based on "I don't believe it!" You have yet to offer clear reasoning on anything with which you disagree.
Good for you!
Yet you view the Governing Body as speaking for God. Does God not awe you?
Sadly, true. But the JW cult offers an ideal place for such sheeple.
That is one good thing about the JW cult. But they are not unique in this.
Not really. They're extremely prone to accept whatever nonsense comes out of Watchtower headquarters. Nonsense that is likely to be changed in short order. Like the organ transplant ban of 1967, which was quietly dropped within a decade.

    
Wrong. People like you are often such fuzzy thinkers that you write things that have meanings you're not even aware of. Such as in the above exchange.
Oh? Which scholars? Let's see if you can provide source references.
Wrong. We know that elders, especially the Governing Body, are uninspired. But the GB claims "guidance from God" that is indistinguishable from "inspiration by God", which means that in practice, they cannot be wrong. I've heard elders make the same claim for themselves, based on the Society's teachings. So if they are what they claim, yes indeed, one expects that they would not be hoodwinked by pedophiles.

Oooooh I gots itchy feet to answer all of Alan's arguments. But I won't butt in. Alan still has to reply to mine...

JW Insider said:
Perhaps, perhaps not. In my experience with online forums and simply talking with ex-JWs generally, I've seen a great seething anger on the part of many because of the Society's policy of disfellowshipping for expressing disagreement with any JW doctrine. Such authoritarianism is bound to create resentment on the part of those who can actually think. Of course, a large fraction of JWs are content to have an authority tell them what to think, and even where to put their feet on each step.
Remember the large drop in JW membership after the 1975 fiasco.
The only reason that many JWs remain in the cult, at least nominally, is to avoid disfellowshipping or informal shunning. I know many, including my own family members, who are in that boat.
The point I'm making is not so much about disfellowshipping per se, but the attitude engendered in most JWs by the policy of disfellowshipping for 'apostasy', i.e., expressing disagreement with Watchtower tradition or policy.
Most JWs are well aware that if they found themselves before a judicial committee for expressing doubt about some JW teaching, the most important question the elders would ask is: "Do you believe that Jehovah is using the Governing Body?" A 'No' answer results in immediate disfellowshipping, as many stories posted by ex-JWs prove. This creates fear in the JWs who think this through.
I think the number of people who would even want to come back is small, so great is the resentment caused by the authoritarian policies.
You're right in principle, but not, I think, in practice. If there were less of a violent reaction by Watchtower officials against disagreement, there would be less pushback by those who are punished for disagreeing. It simply wouldn't be worth their time.
About 20 years ago I managed to get an audience with a Watchtower official about such things. He was interested in hearing the viewpoint of an outspoken online critic. I told him that if the Society cleaned up its act on three issues, most opposition would dry up: blood, child molestation and disfellowshipping. He agreed.
Of necessity, sure.
Of course, because for decades the Society has condemned deviations as rebellion against God. The JW community could be rehabilitated fairly easily.
I think the fact that most JWs DO think of their leaders as governors of their faith belies all that.
That's because there IS no acceptable replacement. Why? Because it is the entire end-times scenario created by Russell and perpetuated by his successors that is wrong.
Much like slowly boiling a frog in a big pot keeps him comfortable.
Such "appreciation" ignores the fact that most of the time, JW leaders must be dragged kicking and screaming away from their traditional teachings. The experience of many JWs who tried to offer constructive criticism but were punished for their efforts proves it. Think of Carl Olof Jonsson and Jay Hess.
If these men were truly humble, they would not claim that their own words are equal to God's.
Considered by who?
Sure, if it involved an extremely clear violation of biblical norms, such as sleeping with one's stepmother. But a far better practice would be to organizationally ignore most bad forms of conduct, since individual JWs are supposed to be trained to have consciences tuned well enough to figure these things out on their own. But a century of authoritarian indoctrination has severely damaged the conscience and thinking ability of far too many JWs. "What does the Society say?" rather than "What does the Bible say?" is the operational phrase for most elders. That's understandable since the Governing Body has put itself in the place of God in the minds of JWs. Watchtower policy almost always trumps an individual JW's understanding of the Bible.

I've heard whole congregations give an enthusiastic Amen when the prayer includes thanks for the bounteous feast of spiritual food provided by the faithful and discreet slave. I've heard entire assemblies and conventions of people respond with joyful applause when a speaker mentions the opportunity to express appreciation for the Governing Body.
It's a social club with a basis in faith in God and in the merits of Jesus' sacrifice and the Kingdom hope for a new heavens and a new earth. Christianity is social.
Yes, an unfortunate percentage are in terrible personal situations because of circumstances imposed on them from the rules and processes. It's a relatively smaller percentage but I do think you are right that this reflects an unloving spirit and shows that many of us are capable of showing "no natural affection." Of course, there are some situations where even close relatives wouldn't talk to each other under similar circumstances when it has nothing to do with the WTS. Humans cut off other humans based on their conduct. If any of my parents or children turned out to be child molesters, for example, I think I'd pretty much disown them.
Yes. This is another area we need to clean up. People are leaving over it. I talked to one myself, although it's a combination for him: both the child abuse cases and overlapping groups within the last generation before the end. Still, my guess is that most JWs don't even think about it in any negative way.
Teaching that Christ never really existed and trying to work that into their teachings among the Christian congregation.
(1 John 2:22, 23) . . .Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Everyone who denies the Son does not have the Father either. But whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.
(1 John 4:2, 3) . . .This is how you know that the inspired statement is from God: Every inspired statement that acknowledges Jesus Christ as having come in the flesh originates with God. 3 But every inspired statement that does not acknowledge Jesus does not originate with God. Furthermore, this is the antichrist’s inspired statement that you have heard was coming, and now it is already in the world.
(2 John 7-11) 7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8 Look out for yourselves, so that you do not lose the things we have worked to produce, but that you may obtain a full reward. 9 Everyone who pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God. The one who does remain in this teaching is the one who has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. 11 For the one who says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works.
 

You know, I think this comment reveals a lot. It is all about themselves with these guys. They simply MUST get their story out! They are incapable of setting aside personal interests for the sake of something greater than themselves. 
Everyone wants their own story to prevail. That is not hard to understand. I do, too. But sooner or later, one must concede that life does not revolve around ME. Submission to authority, and benefiting from discipline is a constant theme of the Bible.
It is as Brother Mick Jagger says: “You can’t always get what you want, but if you try sometime, you just might find, you’ll get what you need.” I want to be center of the universe. I don’t need to be.
I don’t know why the announcement was modified. I would not be surprised if it is a response to relentless attacks of opposers framed legally.
Why would they care about specific wording? They just want something that will get the job done. “No longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses” works. If, through word or deed, you are no longer witnessing for Jehovah, can anyone say that you are one of Jehovah’s Witnesses?

JW Insider said:
Good!
Correct. Remember that "messiah" and "christ" mean "anointed one", meaning "anointed by God". The term does not apply just to Jesus Christ, or even to someone claiming to be Jesus Christ returned, but to anyone claiming to be anointed by God.
        
You're confusing two separate ideas. There is nothing scripturally wrong with expecting and hoping for "the end" to come soon. But predicting a specific time period for "the end" is a different kettle of fish. I need not repeat the many warnings given in Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 against trying to predict "the end"; they're clear enough on their own.
Therefore predicting a specific date or narrow window of time is grossly unscriptural. Otherwise, what do the scriptural warnings mean?
Well, there is a lot that can be said about Revelation. What did John mean by "near"? If we say, "within a couple of decades", then Revelation can be dismissed as the ravings of a lunatic. If we say, "we don't know but we believe John was inspired", then it must mean "several thousand years". But that is extremely problematic since several thousand years is not "near" in any meaningful sense. One is then forced to interpret "near" in the virtually meaningless sense of "an unknown time in the future". And the meaning of "near" in Luke 21 is obviously not that.
The Society itself explained the "I am he" one and only one time, in the Nov. 1, 1964 Watchtower (p. 645). After some commentary it said:
<< The combined testimony of these faithful witnesses pointed to danger from within the ranks of professed Christians. The peril would be not so much from the openly avowed opponents of Christ as from those who would rise up claiming to be Christ or claiming to exercise the rights and prerogatives of Christ as his empowered representatives. >>
Now, who today among Jehovah's Witnesses claims "the rights and prerogatives of Christ as his empowered representatives"? The Governing Body. Therefore, by the Society's own argumentation, the GB is saying "I am he". Case closed.
 
Posted 8 minutes ago
That meaning is consistent with the Society's argument in the 1964 Watchtower: "Christ's empowered representatives".
Which is exactly why Russell and his successors must be among the ones that Luke 21:8 says not to follow.
Further titles were "The Kingdom Is At Hand", "The Approaching Peace of a Thousand Years", "God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years Has Approached", etc.
All of this is so obvious that Albert Schroeder immediately realized its import, and almost panicked. This caused him to deny that the Bible applies to Jehovah's Witnesses. Otherwise he would have had to admit that the JW organization is fundamentally at odds with Jesus' teaching.

@JW Insider Thank you for this comical comment above. 
A few quotes "Witnesses are generally very comfortable with their leadership."
Exactly how many people have you asked. Were they just elders that you asked ? 
Quote "Also, among JWs, there is a great appreciation for the good that comes out of association with others of like faith in the brotherhood. "
Yes it is a social club. Well here in UK it definitely is a social club. Hence when a person is disfellowshipped they lose EVERYONE they would normally spend time with.  Also hence, that is what keeps many JW's 'physically in', because of the fear of being totally alone if they left. Shunning keeps people in the JW Org, that is the way the GB / Org rules people's lives. So, no, many JW's are not 'very comfortable with their leadership', but they just don't have a good way out, without being totally 'cut off'.
And judging by feedback I'm getting from within the Org, fornication and divorce is increasing here in the UK. But I will not enlarge on that due to where I get my information. 
The word Apostasy can be argued here for hours, and in fact often is. 
And the GB seem frighten to announce reasons from the platform for why a person is 'No longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses'. 
So no one knows if a person left of their own accord, or was d'fed. 
As for this 'because no one has offered a consistent acceptable replacement yet.'  It is laughable. Just because you don't know exactly what is right, does that mean you don't know what isn't right ?  And doesn't it tell you to wait on God through Christ, instead of burbling on with untrue information ?  
Quote " Of course, the Bible already gives us a guide that shows there are also very serious kinds of apostasy, "
Give us examples please. 
And might your own GB be guilty of some of these ? 

Another person that speaks twaddle ? lots of words that mean nothing / more smoke screen.  @TrueTomHarley
With all that I've been reading about 'those in power' in the Org from 1970 ish onward, it goes to prove without doubt that they were not inspired, nor were they even guided by Holy Spirit. 
Why do you people always have to relate everything to worldly things ? 
If I compared my house to a third world tin slum, then my home is almost perfect.  But if i compare my home to one of those houses the JW Org is selling in London for over one million pounds, then my home isn't so cool. 
That is why you people love to compare your GB and it's Org to the world, so that your GB and it's Org always looks better. If you were brave enough to compare your GB and it's Org to GOD'S HIGH STANDARDS, then you see the many dangerous faults. 
And as for your scripture misquote “To whom else shall we go?   I don't remember reading in God's word, that the answer was, Go to the JW Org. You see how you twist scripture to suit your own means ? 
Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life,
The scripture is concerning JESUS CHRIST, NOT JW ORG. 
Quote "In this case, the “no Santa Claus” is learning that the GB is made up of men who can make mistakes."
I think the Watchtower words were ' make mistakes and err'
So in your eyes does that mean make mistakes and make mistakes  (which makes no sense) 
Or, does it mean make mistakes and deliberately do wrong ?  
Please don't have the wrong kind of 'love' for your GB, that it becomes worship. Because if you do you will be too forgiving, and in so doing you will not 'search all things to see if they are true'.  
On this forum, we have seen this critique a few times. It was clearly claimed by @JOHN BUTLER, who sadly was "DF'd" from the forum. 
I just have to pick up on this point. Firstly it's good to know what happened to him.  So the question is why ?
And secondly @Anna and others, that @JW Insider directly says disfellowshipped, even if he uses the 'safe mode' of inverted commas. 
This, in my opinion, upholds my belief that this forum is run by Elders. 
 

Lol maybe we should ask to explain the generation doctrine and 1914  as well... 😁😉

"Oh- so you said-"    is a tactic of putting words in my mouth I did not say.  I see you use this a lot.  
What I am saying that "scholars" were hoodwinked by pedophiles  so why would "uninspired" elders not be hoodwinked?  You are the one with unreasonable standards and bias.  

You remind me of the guy who wrote Thirty years a WT slave.  He was a slave....  You really believe the claptrap you talk.  I have been a Witness for 45 years.  I have never been in awe of anyone...... not you either.....
Some witnesses are inclined this way..... but they would be like sheeple even if they were not JWs.   I think JWs teach them to be less useful to governments who use the sheeple to fight their wars and they are less pliable to their political agendas and propaganda because they obey the GB suggestions. They are also less pliable to scholarly  deceit and amorality.

I think you are wrong here. I think that there are fewer apostasy disfellowshippings than you think, so the net effect can't be determined. Also, among JWs, there is a great appreciation for the good that comes out of association with others of like faith in the brotherhood. I'm sure you think this is irrelevant, but it would override any effect a few more or a few less disfellowshippings. 
In fact, I think the effect could be opposite. Membership roles might even increase as persons who had been pushed away would feel more comfortable associating again where they can now feel more supported, even if it weaknesses in their faith that caused their doctrinal deviations. It does not mean that less DFings would necessarily be right, because there are many who are only interested in disruption, chaos, contentions, and causing trouble and discomfort. These ones are not conducive to the comfort and encouragement of the brotherhood, and they should go.
It might produce a more flexible theology as it sounds like there would be less enforcement of deviations. But it would take a while for most JWs to be comfortable with the idea of any kind of deviations, anyway. For the most part we already have a high appreciation of what has been given to us through the organization. This is even true of those of us who recognize the GB as elders handling some specific necessary ministries, and do not think of them as the "governors of our faith" or the exact equivalent of the FDS.
When it comes to deviations of current doctrine, even "overlapping generations" would probably take some time to go, because no one has offered a consistent acceptable replacement yet. Witnesses are generally very comfortable with their leadership. We actually appreciate the humility it takes to remind us that they are imperfect and will make mistakes and that not all the food will be perfect. It would be considered even more discreet to stop DFing for certain kinds of apostasy.
Of course, the Bible already gives us a guide that shows there are also very serious kinds of apostasy, and therefore we would always expect nearly complete and unanimous approval about some disfellowshipping for apostasy.

I think you know that past WT articles have used a sense of apostasy that is not the equivalent of "rebellion against God." I could point to a post here where I discussed an "apostasy spectrum." But you are already aware that the WTS has stated that the "apostate" need not have specifically tried to turn away from God, but they are expressing a desire to leave the organization. (This is enough, and it is even reflected in the new way of announcing those who leave.)
@Arauna even made a point I've heard before that any organization has a right to expel persons for conduct or representation that the organization deems to be detrimental to its interests. A "Golf Course" can expel persons for its own reasons.

JW Insider said:
     
The fact that virtually no JW critics give credence to that nonsense makes everything else moot.
There are two senses of "inspired": 'God-breathed' and the metaphorical sense, as in "that painting inspires me". The two should not be confused, although Watchtower writers often dishonestly take advantage of the ambiguity of the two meanings.
The Society likes to use "direction" rather than "inspiration" because it allows them -- they think -- some wiggle room when their "spirit-directed" policies and teachings go wrong. But in the minds of average JWs, there is no difference, because the result is the same: "Obey the Governing Body's commands as you would God's."
The Society has long been talking out of both sides of its collective mouth on this.
Completely missing the point. No surprise.
What his blog post clumsily and inaccurately alluded to was, rather, the argument that if the Governing Body demands obedience as if to God himself, and disfellowships for 'apostasy' -- rebelling against God -- any who willingly disobey or dispute the GB, then they are implicitly claiming inspiration. Why? Because if they acted in accord with the fact that they themselves are well aware of -- that they are in no sense inspired -- they would have to stop pretending that their words are God's words, and stop disfellowshipping people for apostasy.
Of course, most everyone understands that, after all this time and irreparable damage to families by these disgusting teachings, if they changed their policy and quit disfellowshipping for 'apostasy', their membership roles would drop immediately and drastically. And of course, a very large number of JWs would sue the Watchtower Society for various abuses, probably forcing it out of business.

For you that are debating bylaws and secular law? This might shed some light on several points raised as a concern for the term grooming.
*** g04 12/8 p. 20 The Internet—How to Avoid the Dangers ***
Children are even more vulnerable to exploitation and harm by “computer-sex offenders.” Using “crookedness of speech” and “deviousness of lips,” pedophiles target inexperienced children. (Proverbs 4:24; 7:7) Engaging in a practice known as grooming, they shower the child with attention, affection, and kindness to make the youngster feel special. They seem to know everything a child is interested in
 
*** g 10/07 p. 6 How to Protect Your Children ***
  In time, the molester will begin grooming the child for abuse. He gradually becomes more physical with the child through innocent-looking displays of affection, playful wrestling, and tickling. He may give generous gifts and begin to separate the child from friends, siblings, and parents, in order to spend time alone with the child.
 
Officially, that term “grooming” has been attached to several circumstances. To that extent it was used in combination for the term “child abuse” as part of a legal argument that wasn’t used in the U.S. until 2009.

The consideration is with timeline. The Watchtower, without being obligated or forced by reform, mentions in earlier articles addressing the problem of “grooming” in 2004-2007 that became the extent of the law in 2009.
Any former member would then need to answer this fundamental question when this defense is offered, why wasn’t the child’s parents or close family member, didn't take precautions by reviewing prior Watchtower articles addressing such a danger?
 

That was the point—to demonstrate that he knows things others do not.

On this forum, we have seen this critique a few times. It was clearly claimed by @JOHN BUTLER, who sadly was "DF'd" from the forum. It is similar to what has been said by @4Jah2me more recently, and @Witness, too.
The idea is that if Jesus had in mind an ongoing feeding program from an appointed "faithful and discreet slave" where these teachers of the kingdom would teach things both old and new, then they should be inspired in the sense of having something like a "double portion of Jehovah's spirit." This does not mean "inspired" in the same sense as "apostolic succession" but aliases associated with @AllenSmith-38 have argued for something very close to "apostolic succession" or at least "apostolic precedence."
I think that TTH's blog was actually dealing with a real question about an idea that the GB should really be inspired, even infallible, and that they should produce "perfect" food, which of course, they don't claim to do.

TrueTomHarley said:
     
Such an infantile rejoinder! You continue confirming that you're a real dummie. But since you suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect you don't know it.
LOL! This ridiculous bit of special pleading starts off, in its very first sentence, with this bit of nonsense:
<< It is revealing to me that those who taunt JWs endlessly over just how “inspired” are the ones at the helm today seem to take for granted that there should be ones who are that way. >>
It only gets worse from this simple-minded straw man.
The fact is that no critics of the JWs expect that there ought to be inspired people at the helm. Quite the contrary. Many critics, like Raymond Franz, clearly argued that no one can be inspired today, and that is one reason JW leaders should not make that claim, or make the claim that they have been appointed by holy spirit as Jehovah's representatives.
It is JW leaders themselves who claim or have claimed direct inspiration, or 'guidance' that is indistinguishable from plenary inspiration. J. F. Rutherford claimed that angels magically 'downloaded' information into his head. And on and on.
The fact that JW leaders disfellowship for 'apostasy' anyone who contradicts their teaching or denies that they are God's representatives proves that they really do claim inspiration.
The rest of your 'argumentation' is too childish to comment on.

Anna said:
     
So you don't think that God appoints any GB members. Good for you! If God did not appoint Greenlees, then he and the rest of them were appointed by fallible men -- a position considered apostate by the Governing Body and its minions.
 
But that all depends on whether the men applying the scriptures do so perfectly. If they do not, then holy spirit could not have appointed the man.
It does not. All your rationalizations are mere special pleading.
     
Then God had nothing to do with Greenlees' appointment to the GB or anything else. By extension, neither does he have anything to do with appointing any other JW elders -- contrary to the Society's claims.
     
Not as such, but they would certainly have been inclined to ignore Greenlees' behavior if they knew about it. And things like obvious homosexuality are not things easily ignored.
And of course, according to Watchtower doctrine, anyone not fully qualified to be a proper elder would not be appointed, because holy spirit would see to it.
     
Of course. And to appropriate lawyers.
     
Ok, here's a good one.
Consider the Bible passage at Luke 21:5-8:
<< 5 Later, when some were speaking about the temple, how it was adorned with fine stones and dedicated things, 6 he said: “As for these things that you now see, the days will come when not a stone will be left upon a stone and not be thrown down.” 7 Then they questioned him, saying: “Teacher, when will these things actually be, and what will be the sign when these things are to occur?” 8 He said: “Look out that you are not misled, for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The due time is near.’ Do not go after them. >>
The important part here is verse 8. According to most Bible commentaries, and the Society itself, the phrase 'I am he' means "I am someone important, someone to be listened to, someone with authority from Jesus and God to represent them". That obviously includes JW leaders since they directly claim to be Jehovah's representatives. The next part of the verse mentions such people as saying ‘The due time is near’ which obviously refers back to the time when "these things are to occur". Jesus, then, was warning his listeners that if they hear such persons claiming to represent God, and claiming that the due time for 'the end' is near, they should not go after them. Since this perfectly describes what JW leaders have done throughout their history and continue to do, it is obvious that Jesus himself said not to follow them.
In 1994 I had a phone conversation with GB member Albert Schroeder about his failure to follow up on some things he had promised to do. After he said he was reneging on his promise, I decided to challenge him with a question about Luke 21:5-8. I asked him, "What do you think that passage means?" He got out his NWT and read it out loud. After finishing verse 8, he was unable to speak. After a minute or so, I said, "Well? What does this mean with respect to applying it to JW teaching about the end?" After another two minutes or so of dead silence, he said, "It can't apply to us, because we're God's people!" Of course, you can imagine my reaction.
In 2009 I found myself living temporarily in Utah, in Mormon country. One Saturday morning a lone JW, a man of about 70, came to our door. After some pleasantries where we identified ourselves as ex-JWs, I challenged him with Luke 21:5-8 and asked him the same thing I did with Schroeder. He was silent for a bit, and then said that he understood what the passage meant, so I asked him if he intended to remain a JW, given that his Lord Jesus Christ specifically said "do not follow them". He said that he had been a JW all his life and was too old to change. Perfectly understandable, of course, but also perfectly unchristian.
Obviously there is no point in his latter years where he had "been made clean".
     
Shows like those are not intended to be scholarly documentaries but to motivate people to act. And that's what they did.
Yes, and the people who helped spark all that were partly motivated by those TV presentations.
 
Your point? Complexity is irrelevant to the criminal coverups.
     
I perfectly well understand the process. God and holy spirit have nothing to do with it. JWs merely pretend they do.
But the Society makes no claims about such things.
What do you think JW leaders mean when they say that Jehovah has appointed them as his anointed representatives? Merely that their predecessors read the Bible and decided to appoint them? I could appoint myself by that process, but would it be a valid appointment? Of course not, and by the same token JW leaders appointing other JW leaders is NOT in any sense "appointment by holy spirit".

Go back and read what you missed. It is the most valuable material here. 
And nobody, nobody, but nobody who knows me personally thinks me “self-righteous.”
Ask @Witness, who said she loves me so (not inappropriately—it was a manner of speaking) following a recent post. Even though she thinks I drink far too much of the “kooklaid.” Even though we have had some fearsome tussles. Even though she thinks me deluded as can be
But she does not think me self-righteous. Nobody does. 
Of course, Alan does. But he is so full of insults for anyone not coming around to his point of view that it doesn’t count.

That's not what I said.
And yes, that's true. The last people who were inspired were Bible writers.