Pudgy

There was more than one reason I choked a bit on that attribution from Splane.
- Splane is part of the GB who deemed the GB is the "faithful slave".
- Schroeder was part of the GB who deemed those who felt the "faithful slave" pictures only the leading ones of the anointed as "objectors".
According to Splane, we should learn from Schroeder.
According to Schroeder, Splane would fit into the "objectors" category.
Choke...choke...
Alfred Hitchcock anyone?
 
 

Apostasy? Well that's a loud word! Let's say it again. Apostasy! Everyone feel better now?
Jesus was accused and put to death for blasphemy. Blasphemy was held on par with apostasy by the same murderers. So what? If our Master is the Christ, should any of us expect better treatment? The main thing is making sure of all things and holding fast to what is fine.
What is true is what matters. Those who prefer what is false over what is true will attempt to characterize (brand) persons all manner of ways to distract from their showing a preference for what is false over what is true. If we suffer, let it be over saying things that are true.
Don't let distractions interfere with focusing on truth.

I think that some brothers feel they can do a lot more good for both the organization and the congregations overall by not declaring themselves apostates, even if they hold beliefs different from the accepted doctrinal party line. For example, I recall very clearly when I did research for Brother Bert Schroeder (1977-1982) that he often hinted at different beliefs and sometimes even got in trouble for promoting them as "trial balloons" when giving talks during his travels. In those days, the accepted doctrinal party line, even among members of the Governing Body, was that it had to be whatever was already approved (or would be approved) by Brother Fred Franz. This kept other GB members from even attempting to propose alternatives to prophetic interpretations. 
In 1974 there were only 9 active members of the GB, and that number suddenly doubled almost exactly at the time when there was talk about changing the nature of the GB from a "non-governing" governing body into a GOVERNING  Body. Along with the already declined health of Groh and Sullivan, it became known that Knorr might soon die and leave the non-governing GB with only 8. So 8 additional GB members were added in late 1974 to double that active number to 17 (although Brother Fekel wasn't very active).
Until then, many of these same GB members, and even a lot of long-time Bethel "heavies" as they were called, were willing to talk about a pet doctrine that differed in some way from the party line. In fact, they appeared to take some pride in the fact that they could think independently of Fred Franz on a certain topic. When I started in 1976, there was still talk among various table heads (Bethel elders and "heavies") that up until 1974, it was easy to get Brother "so-and-so" to tell you his alternative explanation of this or that doctrine (or policy) [the mediator, the tribulation, parable of leaven, mustard tree, dragnet, etc]-- "but now he's on the Governing Body." As one example, I had questions about 1918 and 1919 and was told that Brother Sydlik had an alternative explanation. It took some doing, but I finally got Brother Sydlik to share what I was told he had shared freely before his appointment to the GB in late 1974. Also, when I worked for Brother Schroeder, he had alternative explanations to the "generation," to the various "type" and "anti-type" classes, to the meaning of "house-to-house," to the physicality rather than just the symbolism of the "heart," and several other ideas. He even asked me to research supposed health differences among people who were left-handed, right-handed and those who were forced to change from left to right at a young age. [He wanted me to "prove" that people who were forced to change had more blood sugar problems. It was the only research assignment that seemed to have nothing to do with the Bible.]
Should Schroeder and Sydlik and all those Bethel "heavies" and other Bethel Elders have declared themselves apostate? They were among at least 5 GB members who, at least around 1978-81 didn't even fully accept our 1914 doctrine. 
Now I don't agree with most of the novel ideas that Schroeder had, but I think it there was some good in the freedom of thought and expression that allowed some to stand up against the "old guard" thinking of Fred Franz on some issues. Fred Franz fought back right in front of the Bethel family sometimes. I was there the morning he railed loudly against those who thought Jesus was "the mediator of every Tom, Dick, and Harry." My own table head at the time was one of those persons, as were probably many others. Fred Franz thought it was apostasy to even harbor a doubt in your mind about 1914, 1918 and 1919. 
But when Brother Splane gave the first major announcement about finally dropping the unsupported "type" & "antitype" classes, who did he credit with promoting this very idea from decades earlier? Listen to his talk and note that he specifically credited Brother Bert Schroeder, who had died about a decade before this change was finally implemented. 
So I would agree that "apostate" ideas are not good to promote as a certainty. But Schroeder was apparently more careful promoting them under Fred Franz tenure, but then more openly when Fred Franz died. And what was apostasy has now become something he is credited for promoting.

Good for you. I was denied this. Perhaps my questions where too precise and hit too close to home. They asked for my questions up front. But they also knew I was not going to be intimidated or distracted from having them answer what needed to be answered. They knew me plenty well enough to know that. Then they outright refused to meet with me in person despite long time appointment within the organization. They just would not do it.
It's really too bad, and sad. It could be so much better.

Early Christians were a body of individuals united in a common cause of following the Christ as best they could. They understood that no matter their family history God accepted their worship so long as they feared (respected) Him and worked righteousness. Jesus life, death and resurrection served as assurance, it gave them hope to add to love and faith they already had. That was it. Those same Christians also realized there were persons who had yet to learn of Jesus, and likely among them were persons' whose worship God accepted, just like He accepted the worship of Cornelius. Christianity was not a unity intended create a hierarchy to lord over worshipers of God and potential worshipers of God. Christianity was a common cause of helping all of these learn of the hope in Christ, and that God had not forsaken them. 
Today we can theorize about concepts like denomination, but it's an exercise in futility. Nothing has changed about what God expects, and focusing on things like the nit of denominations has potential to detract us from things that really matter, like natural law.
Yes.
See my first paragraph above. Insofar as I know, nothing has changed except humans have transposed a bunch of ideas that distract from Christian unity. It's God place to determine whose worship He accepts, and no one else's.

That happens sometimes. When it does the problem is not how strong a person's grasp of concepts is but, rather, whether the person's willingness to learn is greater than their desire to persuade (or protect).
More often than not, the problem I see between persons engaged in a contentious subject is a goal to persuade (or protect) rather than a goal of sharing and learning.

Yes, according to WTJWorg. But is it possible that you forgot the basic things from the Bible study before your baptism? People are born marked by sin. Familiar?
In addition, the idea is older than all of us because it is somehow written in the Bible..."every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood..." - Gen 8:21
lol

Yes.
We all have natural law written in our hearts. Those who choose to follow it don't need a hierarchy telling them what to do. Also, when encountering someone else holding the same common cause there is an equally natural unity, and that unity will maintain despite non-essential differences that may exist.
Folks who want a different system, say a political human government (nation), probably need some form of hierarchy. It's not going to be pretty. Man dominating men leads to ruin. After creating Adam and Eve God gave humans dominion over animals, plants and the earth. He did not given man dominion over men.
Do not put your trust in nobles or in earthling men. Read that again. Are you sure you read that?

It's likely that the majority of persons who have ever lived never heard of the man from Nazareth, Jesus. Yet all men have had opportunity to hear and respond to natural law and in doing so manifested fear (respect) for God and righteousness based on that law written in their hearts. What I've offered on this matter is not the other arguments you allude to (which you admit so I don't know why you throw them into a response to me). My offer is no argument from silence. We have the testimony of Peter and his entourage of Cornelius and his household having holy spirit being poured onto them though not worshiping as Judaism and before baptism as Christian. God accepted them just as they stood at the time. Of course, we know they were invited to baptism into Christ. But their worship was already acceptable to God.

Here's the testimony you allude to:
Q. And do you see yourselves as Jehovah God's spokespeople on earth?
A. That I think would seem to be quite presumptuous to say that we are the only spokesperson that God is using. The scriptures clearly show that someone can act in harmony with God's spirit in giving comfort and help in the congregations, but if I could just clarify a little, going back to Matthew 24, clearly, Jesus said that in the last days ‐ and Jehovah's Witnesses believe these are the last days ‐ there would be a slave, a group of persons who would have responsibility to care for the spiritual food. So in that respect, we view ourselves as trying to fulfill that role.
Jackson said "we" (read: GB) "view ourselves as trying to fulfill" the role of a slave caring for the spiritual food.
Yoda 101: Do or do not. There is no try.
What is arrogant is the GB enforcing what comes from it under pain of potentially lethal shunning when, according to Jackson, the GB is not actually DOING the work of caring for spiritual food but, rather, are only TRYING to fulfill that role. If the role played by the GB is as you say then it's MEN should be CHRISTLY ENOUGH to say that in full open view, even if it means they are exposed to great personal sacrifice. Isn't that what Jesus did?
To those under its foot, the GB acts like a dictator. To those not under its foot, the GB acts like there's nothing to see here; please just move along and leave us alone (so we can keep doing to our subjects what we want to do to them because this is religion and religion is a protected activity).
 

@Many Miles I understand, so let me be clear that I am not advocating any kind of autocracy, on the part of anyone, or any kind of abuse of power. Hierarchy does not in any way justify abuse of those for whom one is responsible. The Scriptures teach and speak of the importance of the strong helping the weak. And that is the purpose of the hierarchy, that those who have God given authority, might serve those entrusted to them. Of course a tyrant does not serve those whom he rules. But tyranny is an abuse of government, not the proper use of government. The true ruler of any society serves that society through his leadership. Hence, when Jesus says that the Apostles should not lord it over them, as the Gentiles do, Jesus is not contrasting leadership in the Kingdom with the way leadership in the state should be (as though civic leaders should not serve those whom they lead). The worldly (fallen) notion of authority is one of domination and tyranny. That’s not the way God has created hierarchy in the family, and in the Congregation. Indeed the leaders of the Congregation have been called to serve the sheep, and that is what they are supposed to do, through their teaching, and their prayers, and their ministry.
I agree that Jehovah was not bound to do it this way. Jehovah, being omnipotent, could have done it other ways. He could have set up His Congregation such that it had no hierarchy, and each man was guided entirely by the holy spirit through his own reading of Scripture. But, that would be entirely unfitting to human nature. We are social beings, and our nature is expressed in societies, as Aristotle explains in his Politics. In addition, Jehovah delights in allowing us to participate in His work, and by setting up a hierarchy, Christ has given men the gift of participating in many unique ways in the extension of His work, with His authorization. The Body is an extension of the Head. The Apostles, elders and overseers have been given the great gift of participating in a very special way in the work of Christ, governing Christ's Congregation, sharing in His ministry, and guarding and providing the interpretation of the content of our faith.
I hear your but, can we be ordered to a common purpose without a hierarchy? That’s like saying that societies and nations can function in an ordered way without a government. This is a common notion among twenty-something anarchists and anarchist leaning libertarians, and hippies. But it is naïve. In reality, throughout the entire history of civilization all societies have understood that without a hierarchy, the immediate result is that each man does what it is right in his own eyes, and the short term result is chaos, which inevitably and shortly leads to tyranny. See Plato’s Republic. No country sends out an army that has no hierarchy. An army has a hierarchy, precisely so that they will work together as one body. And that is why Christ established Apostles in His Congregation, and gave them authority. And it is why they appointed elders and overseers so that His Congregation wouldn’t be left as sheep without a shepherd.
The principle I am pointing out is that in any natural human society, unity requires one leader. Anarchy is loved only by those who haven’t tried it. Even a pure democracy or oligarchy will inevitably have a single functioning leader, even if the person isn’t given any formal title. Nature abhors a leadership vacuum. Pretty much everyone recognizes this.  My point is that it is ad hoc to accept this need for a single visible head in every other human society, whether large or small, at every level of human society, and yet deny it regarding the Congregation, where Christ cannot be the visible Head, because He (being in Heaven) is not now visible to us. As far as I understand, every human society is naturally hierarchical, it has a visible leader, from the family, to the local community, to the state. Any human society must be hierarchical if it is to be unified. That is a natural principle of a human society. It belongs to our human nature to be ordered. An organism (body) is unified in its hierarchy. Meaning the parts of a body are ordered hierarchically, in systems, organs, tissues, and so on. Not every part of the organism is the head according to Paul’s description of the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12) If there were no hierarchy, then the whole would not be a body. Do you agree?
Going back to my earlier point. We can draw from Plato’s Republic that all other things being equal, a unified form of government is a better government, because it is most capable of preserving the unity of the governed. And that form of government that is intrinsically most capable of being unified and preserving unity is that in which the highest political authority belongs to a single individual at a time. This is precisely why countries do not have multiple presidents at the same time, and companies do not have multiple CEOs at the same time, and congregations do not have multiple coordinators of the bodies of elders(circuit overseer) and to a similar degree a chairman/ presiding overseer/ coordinator of body elders at the same time. Both natural societies and man made societies require unified leadership. In Scripture we find that there are heads of families. The Congregation herself is described as “God’s household” (1 Timothy 3:15; Ephesians 2:19), “those related to us in the faith” or “household of the faith”(Galatians 6:10) and the “house of God” (1 Peter 4:17). Hence it would be odd if this family (the Congregation) did not also have a primary head for its government. A body with multiple heads is divided (and potentially divisible) in a way that a body with one head is not. So we should expect there to be a head for the society Christ established. So the fact that we believe that we are the head of our home, that our elders are the head of our congregation, that Biden is the head of our country, and that the CEO of our company is the head of that company. You seem to agree that every other social unit needs a head. So it would be ad hoc to believe that the Congregation does not need a visible head.  
Without a shared hierarchy, what it means to follow Christ and Jehovah will be different for every man, and in many cases, contradictory, in part because who they are, will be different for every man. If you don’t believe me, just look around. Think about all the contradictory claims the world is hearing about Jehovah and Christ and His Congregation, from all the thousands of sects each divided from all the others in matters of doctrine, worship, morals, and practice. Imagine if all Christians were truly united under one Governing Body, all holding and teaching the same faith, sharing all the same worship, and submitting to the same leadership. For example, instead of millions of people hearing Benny Hinn teach that there are nine members of the Trinity, they would hear the teaching of the Father as the only true God.
To clarify an earlier point. There is no contradiction between Christ being the head and leader of the Congregation, and the Governing Body being the head or taking the lead(leaders) of the Congregation, so long as we are very clear that the word head and taking the lead (leader) is being used in two distinct senses. Christ is the Head and leader of the Congregation, because He is the Congregation’s source, life, highest authority, and end. But the Governing Body is the visible representative of Christ, under Christ’s authority but acting in His authority as steward of the Congregation. So the Governing Body is the head and taking the lead (leader) of the Congregation in a different sense than Christ is the Head of the Congregation. The Governing Body is subordinate to Christ. But Witnesses are subordinate to Christ by being subordinate to the Governing Body, as Jesus said, “Whoever listens to you listens to me. And whoever disregards you disregards me also. Moreover, whoever disregards me disregards also Him who sent me.” (Luke 10:16) But if it were true that no one could speak for Christ without undermining Christ’s unique authority, this verse could not be in the Bible. This verse (along with others) shows how Christ’s delegation of authority in His Congregation does not undermine His unique authority, but allows others to participate in it, in a subordinate way. So you can start to see how the Bible speaks at times using negative phrases when in fact is not trying to exclude all others from being considered or described the same way as the subject here. What I am talking about is a different type of application, a different degree of usage. 

There is no form of hierarchy without abuse of power. Unless the leader is very gentle and soft and allows everyone everything. But even then, he will have more sympathy for some people, and some will not be to his liking.

…. there is no substitute for victory.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

…. there is no substitute for victory.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Yes. I’m familiar with those merry-go-rounds. I don’t ride those rides.
Here I have no goal of settling or resolving any disagreement(s). Were that to happen? Fine. But I’m here to share and learn. 

Exactly right. No one should ever embrace deception. Fortunately, for me, but unfortunately for the reviler, the predictions invariably came true. Truth is not the same as deception, although there are deceptive truths. At any rate, it doesn't matter to me any more, it was just a fun experiment in psychology, but it becomes boring when simple predictions become too easy so I moved on to other things. 

Whoa! once again! Georgie, I fear you will not believe this, but I really did not know @JW Insiderhad employed the trick in the very message he was speaking of it! I even wondered why the quote box appeared too big for the words contained. Ah, well, it’s just some sort of pesky technical snafu, I told myself, and manually shortened the box.
I mean, this is like finding a decoder ring in your Cocoa Puffs. I’m taking the next month to comb through all too-long text boxes in search of them.

Whoa! It’s sort of like discovering, not only that the hand really wrote, “Mene mene tekel parsin, You fink!” but that Belshazzer clandestinely downvoted the remark.

Exposing your predictions can keep them from coming true. The opposite of self-fulfilled prophecy. I often place my predictions in 'white on white' text so that most browsers will make the text disappear completely. All you have to do is highlight the hidden text by selecting and you can read it clearly. In the olden days, when I cared enough, I had a lot of fun adding a sentence or two to the end of a post. They often would have embarrassed a certain reviler person who, under multiple disguises, couldn't help but bring up my name to cause some kind of dissension every few days. But then at the last minute I always decided it would be more Christian not to point them out, but some of the "hidden text" is still posted and can even show up in the site-search tool.

To be fair, I have ADD, and a 77 year old with ADD really needs to write with crayons.

Here I am. Send me.
I'll do what I can.
I'll use longer words for those who need longer words. I'll use shorter words for those who need shorter words.
So long as the communication is clear all is good.

I want to say something more in response to that notion.
Rationality does not have a main tool. Rationality is a tool.
Things learned or advocated by science are no more or less useful to rationality than premises from any other source, including purely theoretical premises, even invented premises for sake of devil's advocacy to explore creative ideas.
It's pure fancy to think of science as a main tool for rationality.

No.
Rationality is a tool used by science, but it is not science.
Science is a systematic process intent on learning about our universe.
Rationality is a method of thinking intent on maintaining objectivity.
As a hammer is not carpentry even though carpenters use a hammer, rationality is not science even though scientists use rationality.
Rationality will not prove faith, but it can be used to test faith, and any faith worth holding is worth testing.
As the biblical text suggests, the biggest difference between the "physical man" and the "spiritual man" is that one is willing to examine everything and one does not care to.
Rational thought does not require lofty language, but it does require understanding how to avoid fallacy and how to be objective about evidence and inference.
We should attain to speak to whatever audience is willing to learn.
Also in the 1st to Corinth,
"For, though I am free from all persons, I have made myself the slave to all, that I may gain the most persons. And so to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain Jews; to those under law I became as under law, though I myself am not under law, that I might gain those under law. To those without law I became as without law, although I am not without law toward God but under law toward Christ, that I might gain those without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might gain the weak. I have become all things to people of all sorts, that I might by all means save some."
Many Miles does not look for the best market. Many Miles shares what he can where he can wherever that happens to be, to help whoever is there as best he can.
In my experience, the hunger is there among all to learn a better way of life, which is what our worship is. I do not count converts on a report slip. God through his son Jesus are the ones who determine whose worship they accept, and I leave it to them.
 

I just want to draw a circle about something you say here Juan.
When discussing subjects with a view of learning from one another, it's productive to have a starting point based on things that are mutually recognized. Said another way, find what things are held in agreement and then construct deductive reasoning off of these as premises. For anyone who wants to learn, this is very helpful, because if they have any regard at all for sound reasoning, the person will yield to (or at least consider) the conclusion.
There is always some common ground upon which to hold a conversation. But it's not always the case that each person in the conversation has regard for sound reasoning. That's the difficult part.

That is a statement that should be read, digested and responded to with great caution.