Juan Rivera

I'm not sure when, specifically, a change was made on this teaching. I still hear the connection between Noah's ark and the earthly organization in recent GB talks. Also this relatively recent Watchtower from 2006:
*** w06 5/15 p. 22 par. 8 Are You Prepared for Survival? ***
Just as Noah and his God-fearing family were preserved in the ark, survival of individuals today depends on their faith and their loyal association with the earthly part of Jehovah’s universal organization.

I think that TTH says he is currently reading the book "Children" which includes this idea, but it started earlier. Rutherford tended to make EVERYTHING fall into only two categories, either it was part of Jehovah's organization or Satan's organization:

Children, p.67
Of course, this included not just the earthly part of that organization, but the focus was on the heavenly part. So it was not so much different, in principle, than the way we understood Paul's words in Galatians about Sarah vs. Hagar:

Children, p.79
Of course, Rutherford uses the term organization 160 times in the book Children alone. The problem, in my opinion, is when he focuses too much on the earthly part of the organization, and he accepted that the word of the earthly organization should be seen as the equivalent of the "word of the Lord" himself. The "confusion" started with his very early idea that Jesus came to inspect his "Temple" in 1918. This Temple was the earthly organization, even though you wouldn't have expected that the "Temple" would picture something earthly. There are many times in the publications (under Rutherford) where "salvation" is too closely attributed to the organization, and not Jesus and Jehovah.
Organizational directions, no matter how mundane, became "instructions from the Lord."

Watchtower, 7/1/43, p.204
 

"The Ship" you were commenting about here reminds me of the same issue you brought up regarding whether the "ark" would be seen as an organization. I mentioned speaking to an 80+ year old elder who is a good friend of mine from Bethel. When we just spoke, he mentioned that when he taught Gilead classes, he once asked the class what would happen if anyone taught the "truth" of almost any paragraph from "The Finished Mystery." The class was in agreement that the person would be disfellowshipped. So he asked, then what was it that Jesus would have seen in the group so that he would choose to bless this particular ministry? I told him that I would have guessed that it was neutrality/no-War, no-Trinity, and no-Hellfire. He said that there were other groups who also taught those same three doctrines. I said I didn't know there were any that taught all three at the same time. But do I really know that there weren't such groups in Argentina, Poland, Scotland, etc. Maybe he would be driving at the value of the USA location, which didn't seem likely. But his only point was that all we can assume is that it had to be their love of Jehovah and his Son. That's what will always be the most important as doctrines continue to change. 
I hadn't given it too much thought that way. I always figured it was at least our core set of doctrines, but I still agree that it was a good point for discussion.

True. And he gets to that of course.
I like to look out for positive things that are "admitted" to be true, even when you might not expect the source to admit those positive things. In this case, it made me think that Rutherford, in 1916, still had a lot of faith in the chronology and in the imminent "manifestation" of Christ's return. If it didn't happen in 1914 as expected, or even in 1915 using Russell's recently shifted chronology, then it was at least expected that Russell would live to see his reward in person. And now that Russell hadn't lived to see the "change/translation/rapture" actually happen, Rutherford must have had faith that the end must still be extremely close. Perhaps he thought there was no time for legal maneuvering and politics.
What would it matter who was president of the Society if the end were coming upon them in just a few days or weeks? 
What I am seeing is that there were several factors that motivated the maneuvering, and it wasn't all centered on Rutherford himself. Others played a large part in what finally happened. [Edtied to add that some of those "manipulations" evidently started out as various factions and disagreements within the current leadership, and it's partly a matter of how quickly Rutherford would side with those who already, like himself, wanted some out and some to stay.]

I thought I wouldn't do this, but since you asked, I found the answer interesting.
In 1915 Rutherford felt himself a "defender of the faith" in a very literal sense. He had written a defense against most of the attacks on Russell in 1915. When Russell died, in 1916, it looks like Rutherford was genuinely concerned to do the right thing, scripturally. I hadn't known that P.S.L. Johnson was actually a very good friend of Rutherford's at the time. (Later they had a big falling out.) So when Russell died, Rutherford went to his good friend because he trusted him to know the prophetic types better than anyone, and wanted to know if Russell would have a successor. (They had both just recently met in Maryland at the time Russell died. Johnson lived in Ohio, but was in Maryland on a "Pilgrim" visit  and Rutherford was there on business.)
Johnson told Rutherford that he didn't know about Russell having a successor, but he would study the "types and anti-types" and get back to him. And they both traveled fto NY in the next couple of days to get to the funeral. It might seem naive to look at "types" for a kind of "sign" as to what to do next, but it was new to me that Rutherford did not at that moment come across like the bombastic, brash person we sometimes think of from later months. Even though we have recently dropped "type/antitype" doctrines, it is interesting that they would use these as a kind of "Urim/Thummin" before they made a decision, and not just find "types and antitypes" to explain or justify or "scripturalize" decisions or events that already happened.
When they felt "lost" they turned the Bible, and Rutherford turned humbly to someone he thought of as smarter than himself on scriptural matters. (PSL Johnson was considered to be the most brilliant of the Bible Students at the time.)
Also, I learned from the book that the board of directors actually tried to run things the way that Russell had outlined in his "last will and testament." Johnson said that this lasted about a week. It wasn't just Rutherford who were rejecting Russell's will.

In the book, Persson notes that he first noticed a discrepancy in the book "Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose" (jp) in the late 1960's, and that's when he first took an interest in our modern-day history. But he started his research in 1973 (still a Witness, of course) when he began writing to those who still had some first-hand knowledge or documentation. He planned to write the book in the late 1970's, he says, but was delayed with other matters (unspecified). There are many indications from his research that he was very serious about this project for many years prior to 2014.
I called an older brother from Bethel in his 80's last night and we spoke for about 2 hours about things he knew about the matter. I'd heard things from an elderly elder in the 1970's at Bethel (my "Table Head") but the elder I spoke to last night actually did a lot of historical research, and his writings are still being used in the current publications (but it's things he wrote several years ago; he is "retired" and not actively writing any more). He didn't know about the book, but won't get it or read it because he thinks of Rud Persson as an apostate. But he's happy to answer any questions. 
When at Bethel, I was just one of several Bethelites who taped interviews (about those "olden days") with persons like Maxwell Friend, Fred Franz, and Grace DeCecca because we could give non-outline Sunday talks in the congregations in those days, and I gave a couple of talks in several congregations based on excerpts from several hours of those interviews. This same brother I spoke to last night had helped me organize the excerpts.

Why do I want to attach a laughing emoji to this but somehow feel I shouldn’t?

If it is Rutherford’s coup and much too expensive are you sure it is not really Perrson’s coup?

I don't think the question was about what the "Flood" represented, but what the "Ark" represented. The Children book says it represents God's organization, as you saw. But I only brought up the Children book because someone here had just mentioned the book. You could actually go to MOST of Rutherford's books and find a similar statement.
Here's his book "Riches" (1936)

. . .

...

If it sounds odd to say that the "other sheep" must work with Jehovah's witnesses, it was because, in those years, only the anointed remnant were called Jehovah's witnesses. The "other sheep" were called Jonadabs.
In the Salvation book (1939) he also says the Ark represents God's organization. Curiously, this time he made Noah represent Jesus instead of the faithful remnant (faithful and discreet slave), but still had his sons and their wives represent the "other sheep" (Jonadabs). In this particular book (Salvation) he somehow left out the faithful remnant.

At any rate, you are probably aware that Rutherford consistently says that Noah's Ark represents God's organization, and that this means only Jehovah's witnesses could expect salvation.

Just to clarify a few things. I am not averse to cooperating with instructions. That is not what I am talking about at all. And I am very appreciative of the constant reminders in WT studies, talks etc. which help us to remain in pure worship. Very grateful for it, and I think the GB are doing an excellent job. And our family does have a backpack ready (ha!)
What really irritates me though is this constant need to harp on about the reason to obey now .....the reason being that if we get used to obeying now,  it will mean our salvation in the future when we have to obey this one last instruction (whatever "impractical" thing that will be) to get saved. That is wrong. It's like a veiled threat. 

What gets me is when we keep going on about obeying instructions in order to survive Armageddon. This weekends WT study mentioned it agaiin....comparing the GB to Joshuah and Zerubabel. (Otherwise the study was very good). "Sometimes God’s people received direction that did not appear to be practical from a human standpoint but turned out to be lifesaving". 
The WT gave a couple of current examples....just stopping short of mentioning getting vaccinated against covid (thank goodness).
Are we not putting too much emphasis on the organization being the saving power, in other words our salvation being dependent on instructions coming from imperfect men? Whereas salvation is clearly going to come from Jesus, and we may be anywhere doing anything when Jesus saves us. Or is the mark for survival from the secretaries ink horn contingent on having our backpack ready or hunkering down somewhere?? As if Jesus cannot save us uless we listen to these types of instructions. I always thought the criterion was dependent on pure worship. This whole life we live is a test of our loyalty to Jesus and Jehovah. Everything we do today and tomorrow, the choices we make with respect to pure worship is what places that mark on our foreheads. And after all these tests we encounter every day, then there will be another test to see how obedient we are to the GB?? Give me a break! Past Bible examples do show that there were certain procedures the people had to follow in order to survive, BUT the situation at Armageddon will be incomparable, it cannot be said to parallel any other situation before then. I don't know why we keep obsessing that it is the same. It's like regurgitating types and anti types again....drawing parallels where there are none.

Yes indeed.
But as mentioned in my earlier post, there are specific requirements for those serving as shepherds in the congregation (older men, overseers etc) for which there is a more exacting role with a more stringent criteria and a higher accountabilty. (James 3:1) They are leaders in a particular sense, with delegated responsibilities for which they are enabled and empowered. 
 

There are plenty of ways that elders and sisters and children in the congregation can "take the lead." Those with specific responsibilities should take the lead in the conduct necessary to meet those responsibilities. In Romans, the entire congregation, children included, are asked to take the lead:
(Romans 12:10) 10 In brotherly love have tender affection for one another. In showing honor to one another, take the lead. This is not specifically an extension of the role of older men. This is also about how the apostles would take the lead in honoring a sister, or a sister would take the lead in honoring an apostle. Or a young child would honor their parents, or the parents would honor the child. The honor goes to one another, so it is obviously based on respect for the dignity of each one of us, based on Christian conduct and love. We should be willing to die for one another if necessary.
(Luke 22:25-27) 25 But he said to them: “The kings of the nations lord it over them, and those having authority over them are called Benefactors. 26 You, though, are not to be that way. But let the one who is the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the one taking the lead as the one ministering. 27 For which one is greater, the one dining or the one serving? Is it not the one dining? But I am among you as the one serving. On the issue of the submission mentioned in Hebrews 13:17, note that the NWT crosses this to Ephesians 5:21 where, again, we are to be submissive to one another. There is an order with respect to responsibilities, but wives are honored in that the husband should have the attitude and willingness to give up his life for his wife, just as Christ had that much love for the congregation.
(Ephesians 5:21-26) 21 Be in subjection to one another in fear of Christ. 22 Let wives be in subjection to their husbands as to the Lord, 23 because a husband is head of his wife just as the Christ is head of the congregation, he being a savior of this body. 24 In fact, as the congregation is in subjection to the Christ, wives should also be to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, continue loving your wives, just as the Christ also loved the congregation and gave himself up for it. The idea of Hebrews 13:17 is probably better linked to 1 Th 5:12, about showing respect (honor) for those doing the work required to preside and teach and admonish. Still, this is all in the context of people doing their part in serving others based on their gifts and abilities. Those older men, especially, who teach must work harder to prepare material that meets the needs of the congregation. They are watching the congregation as a good shepherd would for areas of weakness and danger and areas where more encouragement and good examples are needed. Since they are working to meet the needs of the congregation, the congregation would do well to be obedient and submissive, as this is directly related to the upbuilding and encouragement of both the overseers and those who are being watched. Humbly following good admonition brings joy to those doing shepherding work and brings joy to those following the admonition. It's another form of mutual encouragement that helps to build up the congregation.
(1 Thessalonians 5:11-15) 11 Therefore, keep encouraging one another and building one another up, just as you are in fact doing. 12 Now we request you, brothers, to show respect for those who are working hard among you and presiding over you in the Lord and admonishing you; 13 and to give them extraordinary consideration in love because of their work. Be peaceable with one another. 14 On the other hand, we urge you, brothers, to warn the disorderly, speak consolingly to those who are depressed, support the weak, be patient toward all. 15 See that no one repays injury for injury to anyone, but always pursue what is good toward one another and to all others  

Yes I agree with the many valid points you have made in connection with the necessity to avoid the leadership approach Jesus condemned. 
But on the specfic leadership assignment designated at Heb.13:17 which is also cross referenced to 1Tim.5:17, I would see a much more clearly defined role than that of "older men and others" which seems to be an extension of "in showing honor to one another take the lead" Rom 12:10.,When Paul called the older men of Ephesus together, (Acts 20:17-35), he highlighted a specific area of their responsibilities in v28 that neatly chains in to 1Tim 5:17 and back to Heb.13:17.
This is not talking about leadership, but is talking about leadership style. Jesus style of leadership is part of the model he has left for his followers. This includes enablement and empowerment.
 

Yes. That is how humans are. That is how nations are. That is how the world is. But that is not the way among Christians.
(Matthew 20:24-27) 24 When the ten others heard of this, they became indignant at the two brothers. 25 But Jesus, calling them to him, said: “YOU know that the rulers of the nations lord it over them and the great men wield authority over them. 26 This is not the way among YOU; but whoever wants to become great among YOU must be YOUR minister, 27 and whoever wants to be first among YOU must be YOUR slave. Hebrews 13 gives us the right view of leadership in the same context, and in the chapters leading up to this verse. In context, we are submissive in that we look to follow good examples of older men and others who have remained faithful and have continued to show brotherly love (13:1), continued to show hospitality (13:2), visited those in prison and those who have been mistreated (13:3), continued to keep their marriages honorable (13:4), continue to lead a life free of the love of money putting faith in Jehovah instead (13:5,6). Therefore, as we are looking for examples to follow so that our own lives can turn out just as honorably, we look to those who came before us, those who have taught us about such things, and those in the congregation who are right there in front of us to find such faithful examples:
(Hebrews 13:7) Remember those who are taking the lead among you, who have spoken the word of God to you, and as you contemplate how their conduct turns out, imitate their faith. The main reason we meet together is in order to look for and hear from such encouraging examples of fine conduct and good works:
(Hebrews 10:24-25)  24 And let us consider [fn: 'pay attention to'] one another so as to incite to love and fine works, 25 not forsaking our meeting together, as some have the custom, but encouraging one another, . . . Those who are taking the lead, then, are the ones we see regularly giving their time to those who have been mistreated, those setting a good example when it comes to a non-materialistic lifestyle, morality, hospitality, etc. We look for such persons as we meet together, and as our own faith and conduct turns out, others will be looking to us for the same kind of encouragement, so that we are encouraging one another to love and fine works.
But we are not to look to the example of Israel, and their human kings and priests, as an example to go back to. People often bring up Moses (and sometimes Aaron) and how their leadership was not to be questioned, as a good example for our day, which completely misses the point about the leadership of Christ. Persons who question the Governing Body for example are quickly reminded of Korah, Dathan and Abiram. But that doesn't mean that anyone who sets themselves up in the seat of Moses today shouldn't be questioned. It can mean the opposite, because we should question the very fact of any group of humans sets themselves up in a leadership position like that of Moses.
(Hebrews 3:1-6) . . .consider the apostle and high priest whom we acknowledge—Jesus. 2 He was faithful to the One who appointed him, just as Moses also was in all the house of that One. 3 For he is counted worthy of more glory than Moses, since the one who constructs a house has more honor than the house itself. 4 Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God. 5 Now Moses was faithful as an attendant in all the house of that One as a testimony of the things that were to be spoken afterward, 6 but Christ was faithful as a son over God’s house. We are His house if, indeed, we hold on firmly to our freeness of speech and the hope of which we boast down to the end. None of us are to be faithful to anyone in the house, because, at most, we are the house. But Jesus is the only one who is over the house. Anyone who claims to be a special attendant in God's household of faith today should be questioned. They are trying to "lord it over" others in the same household. Anyone who believes that their form of Christianity requires such a hierarchy to create an "ark of salvation" must watch out that they are not being like Korah if they in any way try to share the leadership of Jesus Christ, or attempt to mediate the salvation of that household.
(Hebrews 8:7-13) 7 If that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no need for a second. . . .  10 “‘For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days,’ says Jehovah. ‘I will put my laws in their mind, and in their hearts I will write them. And I will become their God, and they will become my people. 11 “‘And they will no longer teach each one his fellow citizen and each one his brother, saying: “Know Jehovah!” For they will all know me, from the least to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful toward their unrighteous deeds, and I will no longer call their sins to mind.’” 13 In his saying “a new covenant,” he has made the former one obsolete. Now what is obsolete and growing old is near to vanishing away.

This is certainly true. This kind of attitude led the Israelites into demanding a king which Jehovah saw as a rejection of himself, despite the fact that he went along with the arrangement and gave them a succession of human "leader"s (for example: 1Sam.9:16; 13:14; 2Sam.1:35; 1Ki.14:7; 20:5; to name a few). There are leaders mentioned in a number of approved contexts other than kingship.
So the real problem is not that there would be leaders, this is a natural human characteristic and appears to be part of Jehovah's design of humans. The problem is how leaders view themselves, how they project themselves, what the privilege of leadership does to them;  and how those whom they lead view them. And the added ingredient of imperfection into the mix complicates matters.
But of course this how humans are isn't it? Jehovah knows all the implications of this. So does Jesus, and he went to great pains to demonstrate how leadership should be excercised. (John 13:14-13). His comments on being the only Leader were in the context of vainglorious Leadership. He wasn't doing away with leadership (Heb.13:7) was he?  
So as long as we all keep this in mind. I remember once acting as chairman for a GB member who gave us a talk. He called me aside and said quietly "please don't introduce me with a fanfare as a member of the GB. Just say I am a visiting speaker"
Due you think that was mock humility?
As I see it, true leadership is a role designated by Jehovah on a needs basis. Even the glorified Jesus recognises this 1Cor.15:58.

I know this wasn't to me, but I'd like to answer. You know that I don't think it is the organization itself that keeps us apart from the world. I think of the organization as tainted by the world in many ways, too. It's not a magical "ark of the covenant" to have in our possession. It has been and will be run by humans with many failings. And to be an organization in this world it has to associate with non-believers, and worldly people, in much the same way that Paul said:
(1 Corinthians 5:10) . . .Otherwise, you would actually have to get out of the world.
That said, an organization though in this world can very clearly promote being "no part of the world." Just as any Christian can associate with non-believers in the world. An organization can put "Read God's Word the Holy Bible Daily" on the side of its factory buildings. It can put Bible messages on carts that are set up all over big cities. It can promote Bibles, tracts, and magazines that show why one should not participate in wars, divisive politics, unclean habits, immoral behavior, etc. Not saying much of anything while sitting/standing next to a cart is only ONE of many methods used to promote Bibles, tracts, and magazines.
I wonder what you think of the American Bible Society, or even other religious Tract Societies of the 19th and 20th centuries. I agree that the actual spiritual organization that Jehovah and Christ sees does not require the physical Watchtower organization, per se. But I also think that if you put a group of Christians together they will certainly begin considering ways to get the good news of the Kingdom out to as many people as they can over a given time period. A pooling of resources so that willing persons can make use of efficiencies of scale in printing and distributing kingdom related messages will be inevitable. This doesn't mean that the organization is the source of salvation, it's just a reflection of the love for the message and the attempt to share it worldwide as efficiently as possible.
I also think it's true that not every Christian will be working at the center of such an organization, nor will all of them believe that they need to participate in the exact same ministry as the average person associated with the organization. Some will look into ways that TV, Internet, and streaming video can be used to get a message promoted. Some will feel more comfortable helping their neighbors in other ways if they don't feel called to any kind of teaching ministry. I believe that even these ones, who may not participate in all recommended aspects of ministry promoted by the organization will still prefer to attend congregations to learn what is taught by others. And I believe that the teachings they will be attracted to with the most Christian appeal will include some of the teachings I mentioned before: no war, no divisive politics, no hellfire, no Trinity, yes to high moral standards, yes to associating with like-minded Christians.
The organization Jehovah and Jesus looks for is invisible, I agree. It includes direct communication with Jehovah in our personal lives (through prayer, study, and our requests for a measure of holy spirit) for guidance, in the same way that the Governing Body directly communicates with Jehovah (through prayer, study, and their requests for a measure of holy spirit). We are not "brought to Christ" through the Governing Body. We are responsible for our own spiritual lives. We are each to be concerned with what sort of person we ought to be, not based on what someone else tells us:
(Philippians 2:12, 13) . . .keep working out your own salvation with fear and trembling. 13 For God is the one who for the sake of his good pleasure energizes you, giving you both the desire and the power to act.
(2 Corinthians 5:9, 10) 9 So whether at home with him or absent from him, we make it our aim to be acceptable to him. 10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of the Christ, so that each one may be repaid according to the things he has practiced while in the body, whether good or bad.
(Galatians 6:4, 5) . . .But let each one examine his own actions, and then he will have cause for rejoicing in regard to himself alone, and not in comparison with the other person. 5 For each one will carry his own load.
But I also don't think that all we do is somehow negated by associating with others of like faith who are just as well meaning as we are, and who are also persons we can help strengthen and comfort and encourage, just as they can also do for us. Do you really think that even associating with fellow Witnesses is so bad that Jehovah cannot see our hearts, and find us in his "invisible" organization, too?
(Romans 11:2-6) . . .Do you not know what the scripture says in connection with E·liʹjah, as he pleads with God against Israel? 3 “Jehovah, they have killed your prophets, they have dug up your altars, and I alone am left, and now they are trying to take my life.” 4 Yet, what does the divine pronouncement say to him? “I have left for myself 7,000 men who have not bent the knee to Baʹal.” 5 So in the same way, at the present time also, there is a remnant according to a choosing through undeserved kindness. 6 Now if it is by undeserved kindness, it is no longer through works; otherwise, the undeserved kindness would no longer be undeserved kindness.
 

Personally I am not comfortable with some of the comments the GB have made regarding faith in the organization, apparently putting it on the same level as faith in God. I do have a problem with that. On the other hand, if this reasoning is made in good faith, and has the effect of unifying the brothers, then as mentioned previously, that is the opposite of fragmenting, and fragmenting has been blamed as the cause of disunity and an excuse for Christendom.
A few broadcasts ago, (March?) one of the GB members in his talk, implored the friends to "trust the Governing Body". I thought to myself, well why not? You've got to trust someone right?  Of course, first and foremost we trust God, but because we trust God, we also trust that as long as we, as individuals, stick to Bible principles, he (Jehovah) will make sure we will be OK spiritually. On top of that, surely the GB know that trust has to be earned. You cannot trust someone if they have given you a reason not to in the past. I have not had such an experience to date. There are things I do not agree with, but they are not fundamental. I would like to see more transparency, but at least I have seen glimpses of improvement on that front. 
No we didn't, but as I explained, there was nowhere for them to gather. They were on their own. Stuck in their denomination, but usually they either fought against it, disagreed with it, or left it. By that, we judge they must have been the wheat.
Who is to say that Jehovah ever stopped finding wheat among the denominations and gathering them together with the other wheat within the confines of a physically defined denomination? I would assume that once true worship was restored, (or maybe at some point during the restoration) that was the point at which the wheat started to be gathered together into a group ..
and the Governing Body know that too.
I will address your other point about the glass of water later....

True. By the way, this will be a very "nuanced" point, and I'm afraid a lot of us will find good reason to disagree. Some might even think this part of the discussion is dangerous. But surely it is just as dangerous to toy with blasphemy and idolatry which might be done in the way that some think of the organization and the need to "put faith in [the] organization."
*** w18 January p. 13 par. 5 Pleasant Unity and the Memorial ***
By ‘testing whether we are in the faith.’ To do that, we do well to ask ourselves: ‘Do I really believe that I am part of the only organization that Jehovah has approved to accomplish his will? *** w79 3/1 p. 18 par. 21 Faith in Jehovah’s Victorious Organization ***
But, steadfastly, devoted Witnesses have kept their faith in Jehovah’s organization. They know which one of all organizations on earth the Almighty God has used . . . . Is there any cause for us to lose faith in Jehovah’s visible organization . . ? *** w54 11/1 p. 667 par. 19 Walking in Good Behavior ***
Do we have strong faith in Jehovah’s organization? Then loyally and actively support it. Your regular attendance . . . I know that "Gone Away" responded to the same point by comparing how one might have faith in their spouse, for example. But, of course, it would still be wrong for a spouse to eclipse our relationship with Jehovah, or if we were to attribute salvation to our spouse.
And while there is scriptural backing for a "people for God" or "ark of salvation" perhaps it is only our own materialism --leaning on our own understanding-- that keeps us from seeing that Jehovah and Jesus might not see these man-made denominational boundaries the way we ourselves do. It's true that the material, physical nation of Israel represented a picture of what would be true of Christianity. But I'm pretty sure we need to look more closely at how those pictures were only shadows of the things to come. Israel was organized as a physical nation, and the Law was physically written in stone, but in Christianity there would be a new covenant written in hearts. (Jeremiah 33 and Romans 2:29):
(Romans 2:29) 29 But he is a Jew who is one on the inside, and his circumcision is that of the heart by spirit and not by a written code. That person’s praise comes from God, not from people. (2 Corinthians 3:3) . . .inscribed not with ink but with the spirit of a living God, not on stone tablets but on fleshly tablets, on hearts.
(Jeremiah 31:33, 34) 33 “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares Jehovah. “I will put my law within them, and in their heart I will write it. And I will become their God, and they will become my people.” 34 “And they will no longer teach each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know Jehovah!’ for they will all know me, from the least to the greatest of them,” declares Jehovah. “For I will forgive their error, and I will no longer remember their sin.”
(Jeremiah 4:4)  4 Circumcise yourselves to Jehovah, And remove the foreskins of your hearts,. . .
 
I find it instructive that the Bible's contains admonition against inadvertently "worshipping" the sun or the moon, and it is not about bowing down to them formally and following some specific rituals common to sun worshipers. Instead it is about how one might be secretly seduced by their beauty and magnificence. I also think it's instructive that basic religion as described here in Job also includes exactly the primary points that Jesus said were worth more than the Mosaic Law.
(Job 31:14-34) 14 What can I do when God confronts me? What can I answer him when he calls for an accounting? . . . 16 If I refused to give the poor what they desired Or saddened the eyes of the widow; 17 If I ate my portion of food alone Without sharing it with the orphans; . . . 19 If I saw anyone perishing for lack of clothing Or a poor man with nothing to cover himself; . . .  21 If I shook my fist against the orphan When he needed my assistance in the city gate; . . . 24 If I put my confidence in gold Or said to fine gold, ‘You are my security!’ . . .  26 If I saw the sun shining Or the moon moving in its splendor; 27 And my heart was secretly enticed, And my mouth kissed my hand in worship of them; 28 Then. . . I would have denied the true God above. 29 Have I ever rejoiced over the destruction of my enemy Or gloated because evil befell him? . . . 32 No stranger had to spend the night outside; I opened my doors to the traveler. 33 Have I ever tried to cover over my transgressions, like other men, By hiding my error in the pocket of my garment? 34 Have I been in fear of the reaction of the multitude, Or have I been terrified by the contempt of other families,. . . It's about hospitality, loving one's enemies, loving justice, kindness, looking after orphans and widows, and looking after the hungry, thirsty, and even the homeless in their tribulation. When persons are without clothing we give them something to wear. These are all things that mirror Jesus' words and the book of James about what motivates true Christian religion and on what basis we will be judged. (I included 33 and 34 only because they show that in "true religion" when thinking of our own accounting before Jehovah, we do not hide our errors, but humbly admit them, even as an organization involved in an important teaching ministry.)
I mention this in advance because I also think it is sacrilege to claim, out of context, that giving a glass of water to one of Christ's brothers means treating the 'faithful and discreet slave' with proper respect. In its Biblical context, it was part of the discussion that we should all be motivated to do good for everyone, and that even those non-followers of Jesus who just happen, therefore, out of kindness to treat Christ's followers kindly, will be counted as Christ's followers. This is another example that might bear on the original question. We can claim that something in 33 C.E. changed all that, so that everyone had to join the Christian congregation from that point on, and start giving "glasses of water" to the anointed, but this is far from the point Jesus was making. It seems he was really saying that Christianity could be imputed even to those who didn't know they were Christian:
(Matthew 25:37-40) 37 Then the righteous ones will answer him with the words: ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and receive you hospitably, or naked and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 In reply the King will say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’ In our current WTS view, we avoid the idea that just any Christian might actually find Christ's brothers hungry and feed them, because this contradicts our current view of the "faithful and discreet slave." This must be why we ignore quote and focus on the "drink of water" instead.
We had no problem imagining them scattered among various denominations as wheat from the year 200 until the late 1800's. You must have the idea that there was a point in time when this changed. We like to think it must have been around 1919 when the "slave" was to have been appointed. A true Christian might have begun to notice the religion that began teaching no hellfire, and no Trinity at that time, but it wasn't the largest non-Trinitarian denomination (although I think it was quickly to become the largest non-Hellfire denomination). But remember that these teachings, although I think they were most important, were not the primary focus in 1919. The primary focus was a false prophecy about 1925, and that false prophecy remained the primary focus from 1919 right up into the beginning of the year 1925. And it was still heavily infected with the "cult of Russellites" even according to the admissions of our own publications. Don't get me wrong, there was plenty to agree with, and there were plenty of beautiful expositions of Scripture to be found in the Watchtower, the Seven Volumes, the Harp of God, and various booklets. Most of the beautiful things were not unique to the Bible Students, though. MOST of the focus at the time was on maggots and worms as "Gone Away" has referred to some of these teachings.
I'm not saying that Jehovah didn't bless the work of those brothers who continued looking for gems within the Bible Student movement. We have to consider whether any true Christian would (or should) have even considered joining the Bible Students between 1919 and 1925.
So at what point did Jehovah stop finding wheat scattered among various denominations. At what point did Jehovah start declaring that all wheat must now be found within the confines of a physically defined denomination?
Again, I must explain that I think we are better off and safer as Christians associating with the brotherhood that allows us to practice Christianity in the best way we know how. We can have "faith" that the best place for us is among Jehovah's Witnesses. But as you said:

That is a shame.  A "people for God" or "ark of salvation" does have scriptural backing though. However, it's illogical to think that associating, on its own, would merit an automatic ticket to salvation. Surely they know that in the end each will render an account for themselves to God, individually?  I don't think the WT has ever taught that salvation is secured if you are one of Jehovah's Witnesses and associating with the org. only. Otherwise they wouldn't have to keep reminding us constantly with how to keep ourselves in God's love. We would just get baptized and that would be it. Pretty much like a lot of the "Christian" religions I know.
It doesn't in so many words but surely there are plenty of scriptural indications that this it does. And it follows a pattern from when God first chose a people for his name. It also stands to reason that it is necessary to be organized in order to preach effectively, to have united teachings, and to keep congregations clean. As far as I know Jehovah's Witnesses are the closest out of all the denominations to the original church established by Jesus. We don't need to make excuses like the above mentioned quote from the Christian website for why we do not keep unity and keep the congregations morally clean. I quote it again: " However, the early church was more diligent to identify and eradicate false doctrines than today's multi-denominational church. It was easier for the early church to discipline, or rid itself of those engaged in immoral activity. This could be because the early church was not as fragmented, or divided as the church of today".  What an excuse. 
In context Jesus was talking about a man who had been expelling demons in his name, but not following him. The Insight book page1029 vol 2 says:
During this time the Law covenant was in force, by God’s will, and God through Jesus Christ had not yet inaugurated the new covenant and the beginning of the Christian congregation of called ones. Only from Pentecost of 33 C.E. onward, after Jesus by his sacrifice had brought about the removal of the Law, was it necessary for anyone serving in the name of Christ to associate with this congregation, the members of which were baptized into Christ. (Ac 2:38-42, 47; Ro 6:3) Then, instead of dealing with the fleshly nation of Israel as he had done until that time, God recognized the Christian congregation as his “holy nation.”—1Pe 2:9; 1Co 12:13.
This is also mentioned in the quote I state in my post: "In other words, the end times church (the organization) will include those who profess belief in Christ but who are, in fact, children of disobedience. The Lord Jesus Christ foretold of this reality in His parable of the "wheat and the tares."  You know that Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the separation started happening after Russell and his associates began the restoration "movement".  Although not perfect, (as you mentioned) fundamental truths from the Bible were re-introduced on a much larger scale than had ever been done before, since apostasy first infiltrated the 1st century Christian congregation. If we were to believe that, then it would lend support to the belief that an only true church would be established, and it would be in the last days. If not, then as the quote states, true and false Christians would be dispersed throughout all of Christendoms denominations. I see a problem with that though. Christendom's denominations are stuck in a rut of beliefs which were introduced during the said apostasy. Their members, (lets assume we are talking about wheat like members) although believing they are true to Christs teachings, are in fact believing the lie. Can God and Jesus accept falsehoods that have been promulgated throughout centuries and have smeared their names? Can they tolerate the evil that has been done in their names? Although Russell made some embarrassing mistakes, we did not stay with those. 
Well the central governing body is Christ himself, he said so. And he also established what was acceptable in a Christian congregation and what was not and had it recorded for us in the Hebrew scriptures. Really, having a central human governing body merely makes practical sense for us humans living on earth. Providing of course this central governing body adheres closely to the scriptures and Christ, having Christ as their head. It prevents the fragmentation that is spoken about in the quote, excusing the non upholding of Christ's standards. I cannot imagine how else this could be done. In fact I can see how it fails if there is no central governing body that clearly adheres to the scriptures and Christ, I can see it in Christendom, and their own quote (above) confirms this. We do not expect this human governing body (who are following Christ) to get everything right, but we do expect to see good results, not just in individuals but as an organization on the whole. We do not see these results in Christendom's denominations. I can give many examples. I am not denying there are good people among them that try to live by Bible standards, and conversely I do not deny that there are JWs who live a double life. But I do believe that Jehovah does have a people for his name, and that these people are not scattered among various denominations as wheat, but the wheat has been gathered and continues to be gathered into one worldwide congregation.

Honestly it saddens me to see men following men. Just plain petty. Which version of "the organization" are folks supposed to follow? Folks treat men like God, who decides for them what is supposed to be good or bad. The GB shows over and over again it can flip its teachings upside down. What are honest people trying to live right supposed to do? Just prostrate themselves before mortals like themselves and say, "Please! Tell us how today what we should do today to worship our Creator, and tell us tomorrow if YOU want us to do the opposite and we will." Put that in your next work of fiction. Or, maybe its a reality in someone's mind? Go ahead. Write it. It should be that way.
Men who follow men are victims of a dominion never granted to mankind. Mankind was granted dominion over animals, vegetation and the earth. But not dominion of men. Men who dominate men do so to the injury of those whom are dominated by men.
Worship God by living decently. Treat your fellow man as you would want to be treated yourself. Be willing to give your life for those whom you love. Fear God. Do your best to learn yourself what He expects of you. If this is done sincerely it is enough. There is no more to give than your best. Anything beyond that and God will step in to help. And, why not. According to the biblical account, all God ever wanted from Adam was to live in harmony with the natural world provided, and to have enough respect to abide by a single prohibition beyond that.
But that doesn't seem to be enough for some folks. No. Some folks need us to worship "the organization".

First off, blood transfusions are no panacea, which you realize of course. When it comes to "blood transfusions", all sorts of products are rendered from donor whole blood for transfusion. No products rendered from blood for transfusion are a panacea, and all of them have risks and benefits.
Now, as for the usage of "life saving", it's common usage for a wide array of therapeutics. It is false to say the term is never separated from blood transfusion. As a adjective the term is applied when context suggests it is applicable, no matter the noun it's describing.
If you're bleeding out and on the cusp of death for lack of blood, about the only "life saving" hope you have is transfusion of red cells. But you'll find the adjective "life saving" frequently used colloquially for many things, including emergency transports.

I believe in evolution.
I know this will stagger the faith of some participants here. But I just have to say it.
Evidence:
This discussion started by asking the question "How many here have ever held an MCP party card to look it over and see what it is?"
Watching the subsequent path of this discussion has made me a believer. Oh, and we even have a talking beaver chiming in from time to time!
 

Gasp!!!!
A conspiratorially-minded person could take this confession for an admission that MM IS The Librarian!!!! Now, that would be a puzzle piece to crow about!
Just like I have progressed from being rebuked years ago for shamelessly promoting my first book, Tom Irregardless and Me, to participating here to such a degree that some think I actually own the site.
When the number of my comments surpassed those of the formerly dominating @Pudgy (under a different name) I said, ‘What’s wrong—cat got your tongue? I never thought they would surpass those of @JW Insider, but that too eventually happened.
A few dark and paranoid persons began insisting I was the owner. I denied it, but there is a certain type of person who once they get something into their heads, you can forget about ever getting it out. So I began to play along with the notion, and will continue to do so until this site shuts down, which you never know if that will happen or not. @admin was sweating it a while back about some proposed legislation that would make it hot for webmasters. Apparently, the storm blew over. Meantime, I put most of my writing on my own platform, so if this ever does go up in smoke, I go up to a lesser degree.
I dedicated In the Last of the Last Days: Faith in the Age of Dysfunction to @The Librarian. A writer needs more than a muse. He also needs a villain—and she has provided a playground where villains roam freely, as well as others falling in diverse places on the spiritual spectrum. It’s not always clear where they fall, but it sure is engrossing to put together the puzzle—just know, if you find you have stepped into it, you have to back out for a time. Not every one on a mission is actually on one. Sometimes, they just so closely resemble a person on one that you can’t tell the difference.
Avant-garde to carry on in this way? The entire system is avant-garde, from the slippery one who chuckles hehehe))))) as he is cast down from the heavens, to the brother who rebadges the WaPo byline as ‘Theocracy Dies in Darkness,’ to the brother who cries ‘There is not a righteous man, not even one; there is no one who has any insight; there is no one who searches for God—except me.’

That being the case, it saves swaths of time if we can discover what are the glasses another is using.
It has been mentioned before that if one is atheist, it will so heavily influence anything they utter that you simply waste your time addressing them—unless you are speaking specifically of atheism or if you are speaking to those beyond them.  Atheism is for them the force that refreshes, and if you could demonstrate that each and every accusation against human organized worship is false, they still would say, ‘Well, there’s no god anyway.’ So why should you go there with them? What you as a Christian view as commendable delayed gratification they view as a woeful and willful flushing of one’s life down the toilet. When you say, ‘Well, every project needs headship, so I’ll cooperate with these people,’ they say, ‘They’re even more deluded than you! Cult leaders, through and through! The farther you can get from them, the better.’
Within the realm of religion, find out if the other believes we’re in the last days, for it will so heavily influence anything they say as to make any other criticism of theirs irrelevant. There is no sense swatting the water downstream, for it is immediately replaced. Unless you go to the source—are we in the last days or not?—any subsequent conversation, unless it is directed at those lying beyond, is fruitless. The entire ‘life boat’ scenario that so much Witness action and thinking depends upon is absurdity to them. Addressing some controversy about ‘Tight Pants Tony’ as though that was something that really troubled them, is just spitting into the wind. Even if you win, you haven’t gotten anywhere. I’ll wear pants the size of parachutes if it fits in with lifeboat protocol. 
Find out, as soon as possible, how they feel about ‘the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels in a flaming fire, as he brings vengeance on those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus.’ Many people, even those religious, are repelled by the thought—how could God be so mean! they say. Find this out as soon as you can, because it will determine much of what they subsequently say and, again, you can find yourself quibbling with a point so far downstream—critiques over how Witnesses do this or that—as to quibble all day over a comparative nothing.
And, Lord knows, find out whenever you can if the person is ‘Proud to have come out of the closet’ gay, because if he or she is, you don’t stand a chance in discussing anything involving traditional morals as found in the Bible. Whatever you are debating, with you thinking that if you can make the point it may stick will not. Their ‘sexuality’ trumps all else.
All the above are largely matters of the heart, not the head. The heart makes a grab for what it wants, then charges the head to devise a convincing rationale. This leads the unobservant to think the head is calling the shots, but it is the heart all along. This is why one might buck at ‘rationality’ as the be-all and end-all. Rationality offers good insight into the head, but poor insight into the heart.
The best talks and writings are those that, while not ignoring the head, appeal primarily to the heart. Jesus did things that would infuriate any strict devotee of reason. He routinely spun parables that he declined to explain—let the heart figure it out. If it doesn’t, it doesn’t. He answered questions with counter-questions. Try doing that with a modern ‘critical thinker.’ He launched ad hominem attacks. People may say that the ad hominem attacks of Matthew 23 are not really ad hominem attacks because the scribes and Pharisees actually were that way, but this wlll be said by anyone launching such an attack.
Allen Guelzo the historian lectures about how subjective history is, not at all how most of us suppose it. We get a hint he may be right when we recall the expression, ‘History is written by the victors,’ but he greatly expands on the idea by including new trends and waves of thinking among the ‘victors.’ That’s why (he does not make this point, but likely would if his lectures were given today) Americans pull down statues of Columbus and the forefathers that they once put up. History has (once again) flipped. The good guys have become the bad guys.
But doesn’t our modern day critical thinking solve the problem of subjectivity? he asks. No, it only makes the situation worse, he says, because it repackages our dubious biases as laudable critical thinking. “When dealing with people, let us remember we are not dealing with creatures of logic. We are dealing with creatures of emotion, creatures bristling with prejudices and motivated by pride and vanity,” Dale Carnegie said. The trouble with critical thinking is that those who most heavily advocate it too often assume they have a lock on the stuff.
Accordingly, while your remarks must make sense so as not to explode the head, to go exclusively there is to miss where the action is. It is the heart that is the seat of motivation. One may be dubious of a discussion that appears purely intellectual, as though coming across ones fighting a battle that does not matter.