Pudgy

Two excellent, well thought out posts.
I especially liked the above quoted synopsis.
Since unfortunately, people like witch hunts, we must never surrender to the natural tendency to weaponize “new light”, for the consolidation of ecclesiastical power and authority.
  

FullSizeRender.MOV    
I fully agree but there is another aspect.
Humans iterate towards solutions.
Even Elon Musk tests rockets by taking off the shelf components, kludging them together, and see if it blows up!
Continuous error is part of every human progress.
Vocabulary: Recognize Reality … and it gets simpler and more accurate.
Ignore Reality and you have to change the meanings of what words REALLY mean.
This of course does NOTHING to change reality.
That’s why I recognize the essential 15% of “Core Truths” as the real “The Truth”, and the 85% imagination and wishful thinking as generally unavoidable drivel.
……. sigh ….,
…. It’s like at a State Fair when Fozzie Bear buys an ice cream cone for himself and Kermit the Frog. A cone of honey ice cream for himself, and a cone of dragonfly ice cream for Kermit, and the vendor (played by comedian Bob Hope) advises  “….. don’t get ‘em mixed up!”.

In the jargon of Jehovah's Witnesses, phrases like: "Being in the organization" or "Being in the truth" mean only one thing, that the person in question is a member of Jehovah's Witnesses, that he is a baptized member of this "religious organization", that is, the JW Church.
The problem with this sort of JW thinking is in their concept of meaning of word "Truth" in JW community. For them, the meaning of the word "truth" is equated with religious knowledge, which is a body of doctrines and interpretations derived from the study and research of the Bible by leading individuals within their Main Ecclesiastical* Body ( body called the Governing Body). Because GB dictates how the Bible can and should be understood, and they alone have the right to interpret the biblical text.
(Although JWs never say their organization is the Church. They do not use the term "Church" for their congregations or whole Organization. The term "Society" is also not in common use. And at least the members of JW congregations do not see themselves as a "non-profit corporations", which they actually are because they are legally registered as such and that's also not used in JW jargon.)
* ecclesia noun
ec·cle·sia 
1: a political assembly of citizens of ancient Greek states
especially : the periodic meeting of the Athenian citizens for conducting public business and for considering affairs proposed by the council
2: CHURCH sense 4d
3: one of the local organizations of the Christadelphians
 
Thus the GB's "digested" text of the Holy Scriptures gains significant status and is called "Truth" in JW jargon. This "truth" is also called "food at the proper time." Also, "spiritual food from YHVH's table."
How come that collection of doctrines and interpretations as taught by WTJWorg cannot be called "Truth"? Primarily because the variability (changes, clarifications) of doctrines and interpretations does not fit into the very content of the unique meaning of the word "Truth". "Truth" is a value that can and should last through all times and in all circumstances. Faced with various challenges and ideas, the "truth" should withstand every test and show that it is valid for everything and everywhere. If it is not universal, then either it is not "true", or we need to use other terminology to denote the current value or rule or interpretation that governs our reality or our foreseen, imagined relationships with people and God, and also our understanding of the world. .
 
the truth noun
1.the real facts about a situation, event, or person 
2.the body of real things, events, and facts 
3.a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true
 
Now we come to the frequently used words in WTJWorg.
The phrase "food in proper time" is used from one of Jesus' many illustrations. The illustration is talking about literal human food. Can it also be applied to "spiritual" food? You can, if you want to. But then it changes the purpose of the illustration and creates a new dynamic for the characters in another reality. Keep in mind that the servant who distributes the food is not the source of the food. Neither literally nor figuratively.
The term "spiritual food" and "spiritual drink" occurs only in 1 Corinthians 10:3,4. It is related to the events in the Desert during the journey to the Promised Land and Moses as the leader. What fed them in the desert? Manna. This is the "spiritual food" that fell from the sky. And the water that flowed from the rock in the desert. This "spiritual" (thing, matter, cause) fed and watered the physical, human stomachs of children, women, men, and livestock.
The role GB ascribes to itself is to share "spiritual food". But what and where is "spiritual food". The only one that all Christians in this world know and acknowledge is found in/as the book, Bible. And nowhere else. This, they believe, is the only "inspired Word" from God for humans.
Ask yourself, can the "uninspired word" be a worthy substitute for the "inspired Word"? Can the "uninspired word" accurately interpret the "inspired Word"?
Can people who claim not to be "inspired by the Spirit" correctly interpret the "inspired Word"? Well, it's clear that they can't.
Jesus claimed to be the Way, the Truth and the Life. If He is the Truth, then there is no truth in our claim that we are "In the Truth" or that some organization, religion, faith is the "Truth". That's a nonsensical claim. Because it is contrary to Jesus' claim that He is the Truth.
People, including JWs, can only parade with the claim that they are "in the Truth" that they "know the Truth". The most they should dare to say is that they have a personal opinion and that they believe, that they hope that Jesus will accept them as his followers.
So what kind of "Truth" is it when it comes to WTJWorg? It is about human doctrines, interpretations and speculations. It is about human cognition and the processes that, among JWs, are called progressive processes of understanding.
This kind of JW logic reminds me of the JW counterargument for the theory of evolution. JWs would object to very long processes of organism development with a simple question. If the eyes of an organism developed over hundreds of thousands of years, this would mean that that form of life (human or animal, whatever) was deprived and could not see around itself, could not see food or danger, and this lack could be the reason for not survive.
If we apply the same way of summarizing, then it would mean that the GB cannot "see" the truth because it does not have developed "spiritual eyes" since in these 143 years the "approach to the Bible text" has constantly changed, important and less important doctrines and interpretations have changed. So, the idea of "a light that shines brighter and brighter", and so that nothing can be discerned well in the meantime, and the idea that real progress is achieved through deep and continuous study, while mistakes are made in the meantime, is just an attempt to justify one's own ignorance and tool for manipulate with the faith of believers.

@Srecko Sostar As I see it, a large part(not all) of those who claim to be Christians, including JWs, and the lady of the video you shared (JW Research Rose) all work under the same principle. The principle is that the Christian religion is to be learned by interpreting the sources independently of the claims of any particular church/congregation, so that one must pick or find a church/congregation on the basis of that interpretation. The differences arise from differences about what the relevant sources are, and about how they are to be interpreted. But the principle is the same. 
The point is, that a large part of those who consider themselves Christian whether they are part of a church or not, have a perpetual openness to discovering new biblical and theological arguments to take us back to what the first century congregation itself actually thought. So to claim that something can be settled by biblical and theological arguments seems to be incompatible with that interpretative framework itself. 
So it's not change for the sake of changing. 
I understand your concern, as we all should, since it's clear we will stand before the Judgment seat and give an account for those whom we have aided in truth or misled. But this concern applies to everyone (not just JWs), especially those who are interested in knowing, loving, and serving God, according to the First Commandment (making every effort to seek out and embrace the religion God has revealed). 
Here's the issue I think we all have to face: 
If we as individuals and the Congregation are fallible, and thus could always be wrong, then the assent we give to doctrinal statements is always tentative and subject to substantive revision. If we and the Congregation could get it really, really wrong when we define a doctrine, then it would follow that we know next to nothing with any certainty. Statements of doctrine from a fallible authority of this kind cannot be clearly distinguished from human opinions, at least in theology, as distinct from, say mathematics or natural science. If this is so, then we don't know when what we're assenting to is a true expression of divine revelation, as opposed to a merely human way of interpreting the sources.  Everything remains up in the air, up for grabs, an open question yet to be settled and possibly false. 
I think is important to distinguish between the type of teachings and pronouncements that are being discussed : Do the teachings have to do with faith, with morals? Are they prudential judgments, policies, disciplines, practices, admonitions, worship? Prophecies, symbolic language, parables, prophetic passages? 
The issue you are trying to point out. if I'm right,  is if JWs have a system where some teachings don't change by contradiction, but develop/change in continuity, as opposed to other provisional teachings that can come and go, and even contradict previous decisions, because they are temporally conditioned, and the leadership is fallible with respect to them. There are two points to keep in mind though. First, a doctrine that develops is not corruption, though both involve change. Not all change is corruption.
On the other end of that same conversation: 
Fallibilism is not fallibility. Just because not everyone reasons well (although some people are better at avoiding error than others),our fallibility doesn’t prevent us from having more certainty about x than y. We can perceive the truth of some things to a greater degree than we do other things. So we have to distinguish between being susceptible to error, and the possible falsehood of any beliefs we hold or state. The fact that we are susceptible to error doesn’t mean that we cannot know with certainty that any of our beliefs are true. Nor does it mean that every proposition we believe or state might be false. Being fallible does not mean being skeptical about knowledge or truth. The text(Scripture) does possess meaning and can be accessed by ordinary people by their own reading of Scripture without the instruction of others . But accessing that meaning requires bringing the proper interpretative framework to the text. So what we need is to have intellectual humility and recognize that no one is well enough to avoid error absolutely. We have to recognize where and when and how we are fallible (noticing that we have gotten things wrong in the past, in these sorts of circumstances, in these sorts of ways, etc.)
But this issue is hardly new. You have Christians already in the 5th Century like Vincent of Lerins wrestling with John 17:3 and the idea of growth and development of understanding like Russell's "A new view of truth never can contradict a former truth. "New light" never extinguishes older "light" but adds to it."
The propositional content of our faith is crucial, but it is crucial with respect to its end, which is to safely direct persons to the living reality of God Himself, not merely to insist upon propositions about God.

@Srecko Sostar Here's an excerpt from a book I read a few years ago that deals with this question from a broader perspective, or say a more specific perspective (Catholic Tradition). It's by moral theologian Richard A. McCormick's Notes on Moral Theology: 1965 through 1980)

"I believe it is correct to say that the notion of the assistance of the Holy Spirit needs a good deal of theological attention… Any who undertake to speak about the action of the Spirit, especially if they try to explain how the Spirit works, realizes in advance that they are more than ever likely to end up with a theological foot in their mouth and make an utter fool of themselves; for the operations of the Spirit are above all ineffable. Yet the possibility of gaining some understanding and the anticipation of charitable correction by others minimizes the arrogance of the attempt. With this in mind I should like to offer a possible approach.
In facing this question two extremes must be avoided. The first would explain the assistance of the Spirit to the magisterium in a way which dispenses with the human processes. The second would simply reduce this assistance to human process. The first is the notion of a special assistance by the Spirit which represents a new source of hierarchical knowledge, arcane and impervious to any criticism developed out of Christian experience, evidence, and reasoning. Such a notion of assistance results in a form of fideism which makes it difficult, if not impossible, to see how any authoritative utterance is not thereby practically infallible. Furthermore, this notion of assistance is a summary edict of dissolution for the scholarly and theological fraternity.
The second extreme is such an emphasis on analysis and reasons that the action of the Spirit is simply identified with the shrewdest thinkers in the community and ultimately imprisoned in the best reasons they can unravel. This is an extreme for many reasons, not the least of which is that it is a form of neorationalism which overlooks the complexity and developmental character of moral cognition, especially by bypassing the real significance of the communitarian aspect of moral knowledge, and especially of the sensus fidelium. If the action of the Spirit is primarily directed to the Church as a whole, and secondarily and in subordination to the needs of the Church, to its pastors as pastors, then surely this fact must influence the emergence of moral knowledge, the operations of the magisterium, and the notion of the special assistance of the Holy Spirit to the magisterium.
It would seem that any explanation of the assistance of the Holy Spirit to the magisterium (noninfallible) must be adequate to four factors: (1) the judgmental competence of the hierarchy within the whole teaching process, (2) the activity of the Spirit in the formation of such judgment, (3) the possibility and fact of error in these judgments, and (4) the relevance of the experience and reflection of the whole Church in forming these judgments.
I should like to suggest that the middle course we seek is one which would associate the activity of the Spirit with human processes without identifying it with them. The nature of this association can perhaps be illumined by a reflection on error. When error occurs in human judgments, it would seem to occur in either of two ways: in the gathering of evidence or in the assessment of the evidence. Obviously there can be many reasons why either of these processes would function inadequately, but it is the breakdown of one of them to which judgmental error can be traced. If this is true, then is it not reasonable to think that at least the proper implementation of these processes is generally required to avoid error in complex decisions?
When this is applied to the magisterium, we might say that error could occur either through evidence-gathering or evidence-assessing. Hence at least adequate evidence-gathering or evidence-assessing are required if error is to be avoided. Evidence-gathering is inadequate when consultation is not broad enough to allow the full wisdom stimulated by the Spirit's activity in the whole Church to emerge. Evidence-assessing breaks down when consideration of the evidence is insufficient to allow the Spirit to aid in the emergence of its meaning. In the contemporary world these inadequacies would seem to be traceable to a failure in the fullness of the collegial process at all levels.
Now the magisterium of the Church has special advantages to overcome these handicaps in arriving at moral truth. First of all, bishops as pastors are in a unique position to be in contact with the convictions, problems, beliefs, joys, sufferings, and reflections of all groups in the local Church. That is, they are positioned to consult the experience and convictions (the wisdom) of their flock. As collegial pastors they are in a position to pool this wisdom and weigh it through a process of dialogue and debate. In this sense the episcopal and papal magisterium have sources of information which exceed those available to anyone else. Summarily: negatively, the magisterium is in a wonderful position to reduce the barriers which bind the Spirit; positively, it is positioned to engage the total resources of the community and thus give the Spirit the fullest possible scope.

Therefore, though we cannot capture in human categories the operations and assistance of the Holy Spirit, can we not identify the human processes within which the Spirit must be supposed to operate? And since the hierarchy is uniquely situated to implement these processes, is it not open to the assistance of the Spirit in a special way when it does so?"
 
Here's a discussion by a Witness (Rotherham) in regards to this topic: https://michaeljfelker.com/2014/05/23/spirit-directed-and-spirit-inspired-is-there-a-difference/

.… I think disparaging an education where you can make a good living is counterproductive, as there comes a time when you get old (hopefully), and have to use all available funds for your own and your spouse’s survival.
Free money gets tight, and stops.
With 8 million active recruiters, the Governing Body manages to chase 77% of new recruits away with such ideas.
 

.… I think disparaging an education where you can make a good living is counterproductive, as there comes a time when you get old (hopefully), and have to use all available funds for your own and your spouse’s survival.
Free money gets tight, and stops.
With 8 million active recruiters, the Governing Body manages to chase 77% of new recruits away with such ideas.
 

.… I think disparaging an education where you can make a good living is counterproductive, as there comes a time when you get old (hopefully), and have to use all available funds for your own and your spouse’s survival.
Free money gets tight, and stops.
With 8 million active recruiters, the Governing Body manages to chase 77% of new recruits away with such ideas.
 

Recently, there was an instructional video for JW elders, leaked by a Bethel insider, that showed a meeting of JW elders of a congregation where the CO questioned the status of an elder.
Namely, the child of that elder is a student of higher education. And that is not appropriate to be in a family where the father is also the elder of the congregation. Everything was directed against this JW elder and showed once again how WTJWorg is against higher education for JW members.
Since that video no longer exists because the GB spies were able to hunt down this JW individual and shut down all the videos that came from this Bethel volunteer, I came across this YT video which is interesting because of its same ideological obtuseness in a different setting, outside of the JW world, but it shows the same stupidity.
 
 

… so much for self professed “intellectuals”.

Who names their kid Shelton?

Mothers who have children with at least nine multiple personalities let them name themselves, 

...  a little something about “overlapping generations” …..

Hint: It’ phonetic, not transliteral, and reads left to right, as you can see by which way the animals are facing.

oooh! a new clone!
… how quaint!

…. it appears that, after a spasm of red down votes, Herr Fausto has run out of excuses to not answer the incredibly simple questions asked over, and over, and over … which he refuses to address.
He also appears to have run dry on the alternative of vicious ad-hominem attacks in lieu of a coherent reply.
Perhaps “..low down reprobate rotten scum sucking pig” can be worked into the conversation …. 
Years ago I went to a Renessiance Faire where they had sword fighting, Shakespearian Plays, jousting, etc. and I paid a costumed professional insulter $5 to insult me. He blistered me up and down and sideways for about 5 minutes!
I was in awe of his proficiency.
With Fausto … he needs to keep his day job.
 

…. it appears that, after a spasm of red down votes, Herr Fausto has run out of excuses to not answer the incredibly simple questions asked over, and over, and over … which he refuses to address.
He also appears to have run dry on the alternative of vicious ad-hominem attacks in lieu of a coherent reply.
Perhaps “..low down reprobate rotten scum sucking pig” can be worked into the conversation …. 
Years ago I went to a Renessiance Faire where they had sword fighting, Shakespearian Plays, jousting, etc. and I paid a costumed professional insulter $5 to insult me. He blistered me up and down and sideways for about 5 minutes!
I was in awe of his proficiency.
With Fausto … he needs to keep his day job.
 

Your sophmoric view and collosal ignorance of robots, AIs, and plain unambiguous flat statements is staggering.

If you FORCE THE MEANING OF THINGS , then yes, 2=1. 
… but in reality … it isn’t.

Their own historical record shows their doctrine has DRAMATICALLY BEEN WRONG five times in the past…. what confidence should a reasonable person have that someone who ALWAYS gets it wrong is to be believed THIS time?
Hmmmmm?

…

YOU CAN’T, BECAUSE HE DIDN’T !!
And that incredibly stupid suggestion for me to ask ChatGBT if overlapping generations was POSSIBLE!
… to support your position !
That is not the question to ask if you want TRUTH. 
The question anyone needs to ask is:
1.) What did Jesus mean when he said “This generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur.”  It can’t get any simpler than THAT!  
WHAT DID HE ACTUALLY SAY?
2.) What did the Apostles understand he said? 
WHAT DID THEY UNDERSTAND?
Because your thinking is 100% agenda driven, you may be an “intellectual”, but you are dumb as a stick. 
Sad in a way. A complete waste, because it’s self inflicted.
2 ≠ 1.
It’s THAT SIMPLE.
 

This is so easy it’s embarrassing.
When you fail to prove your arguements you ALWAYS … ALWAYS revert to ad-hominem attacks. The first and ONLY RESORT of the agenda driven  who no matter the topic, are always WRONG!
 

The test is really quite simple and straightfoward.
Explain how Jesus SAID and MEANT OVERLAPPING GENERATIONS.
You can’t ,,,, because He didn’t.