Juan Rivera

I had no idea this topic ran on for so long when I replied above. I am reminded of the popular psych line, ‘woulda shoulda coulda,.’ What one can discern in later years, with the benefit on unhurried time for meditation, one does not discern spur of the moment. Besides, 
Not to mention how it shows he caves under pressure. He’s not going to stand up to Moses spur of the moment. Maybe in his later years, the years most of us are in, but not at the time.

I completely understand what you write here, and don't necessarily disagree. The sole reason I brought up the questions you responded to was only to show there is a limit to any obedience or loyalty we may owe any human or group of humans, regardless of whatever authority they might hold.

What? It was a red herring? They got me all going over a red herring? I sure won’t make that mistake again!
Hmm…..if the ball cost x, and the bat cost x + 1, then the price of the ball . . . 
…okay, take a break, Tommy. Good thread, and all, but doesn’t your wife have some chores lined up for you? Better get to them.

😂I’ll do better on my next response. It’s difficult not following all these rabbit trails. I believe that fruitful authentic dialogue is focused dialogue. Be right back! 

@Many MilesThank you for your comments. Let me take some time to think and consider and wrestle with your criticism/ response in light of your other comments as well, and try to reply tonight

Juan, take all the time you need. It's apparent to me that you are sincere and genuine. (All decisions are not based on logic, though all decisions are subject to logical analysis!) Even if we end up disagreeing, it won't be because you don't care. You care about me. That says a lot. I care about you too.

@Many MilesThank you for your comments. Let me take some time to think and consider and wrestle with your criticism/ response in light of your other comments as well, and try to reply tonight

Thank you for the comments  @Anna The Bible is a holy book, but it is also a dangerous book, because if you don't interpret it correctly, you can be led into false beliefs. I could point to some groups where you would agree that their misinterpretation of Scripture has led to their spiritual destruction. 
@Many Miles I do not believe that for us (Witnesses) authority is identical to truth. Authority is moral power to which submission and obedience is due from those entrusted to it. But when I submit (so long as agree), the one to whom I submit is me. In other words, reducing authority to truth (or agreement by those under authority that the authority is speaking the truth), conceptually eliminates authority. That doesn't entail that every authority has equal authority. As Witnesses, we obey the rightful ruler of our country, but only under God's greater authority. If the president asks us to do something that violates our conscience, or would require disobeying Jehovah, we must serve God rather than men, because God is greater in authority than any creature. But, that doesn't entail that we must submit to the government only when we agree with the civil law or only when we agree that it is good for our country. We might think some laws are bad, but, so long as they do not require us to violate our conscience or the divine law, we must submit to them, because of their authority.
The authority of Scripture is authority with respect to divine revelation. The authority of the Governing body, is interpretive authority with respect to that revelation. These are two different types of authority. They do not compete but complement each other and are mutually dependent according to Witnesses. Witnesses believe that Christ has given divinely appointed men the authority of stewardship and the gift of explaining the Scriptures to His Congregation. So for a Witness the correct way of approaching Scripture is to learn and study it as informed by the guidance of the Congregation. 
That is the choice for a Witness, either they are going to trust and follow Christ by following a divine appointed authority that interprets the faith or follow Christ by determining for themselves and relying on their own judgment on how it is to be interpreted. The Witness who wants to subject the interpretive authority of the governing body to some other interpretive authority to hold them accountable is actually saying whether they realize it or not that they want the Governing body to be accountable to their own interpretation of scripture. This Witness is taking that authority to themselves. And that is another way of showing that the requirement is in essence a denial of their own need for a Governing body.
Some have been concerned that this amounts to authoritarianism. But we all (insiders/outsiders) have to understand the nature of the authority a Witness believes has been given to the Governing Body. If that wasn’t the case, to whom do they wish to make the Governing body accountable? For a Witness there is no higher interpretive authority on earth than the Governing body of the Congregation. So the idea of subjecting the Governing Body to something else presumes that there is something else on earth that has greater interpretive authority than the Governing Body.
So let me ask you guys, I'm assuming we are all Witnesses @Anna @xero @Many Miles @JW Insider   I think we are coming up against the common problem encountered when the authority argument is pressed to its last frontier. Namely, given that the fallible individual (us) must ultimately be the one to make the authority choice, it would seem that whatever authority is embraced will necessarily be tainted with the corruption of our fallibility and choice. If we claim that the Congregation is our authority, but we pick it as our authority, and retain it as our authority, on the basis of their agreement with our own judgment, then performatively they only have semantic authority (is our authority in name only) and is not functioning as our authority.
The apparent incoherencies start to appear when a Witness asks, if a fallible interpretative authority can bind the conscience?... let me explain. Witnesses are called to train or inform their conscience. Part of informing their conscience is coming to understand that the governing body has been divinely appointed as the teaching authority of the Congregation. So thru reason after examining the evidence (history, prophecy, other marks and signs) they come to have moral certainty that this authority comes from God, and that Jehovah has a Congregation, and that Jehovah's Witness are the Congregation Jesus established. So they enter and join this community of faith. A faith which is communicated in part in propositions. Propositions which are professed, believed and shared by its members. These propositions they appeal to, are revealed in Scripture and have to be interpreted by someone if they want to understand their meaning and assent to it. So there is no other way. For JW's it is reasonable to accept the Governing Body’s teaching authority when they interpret scripture because they believe they share the authority of the elders and apostles of the Jerusalem Council in the first century. They also believe they share the assistance of the holy spirit promised by Jesus which would guide them to the truth which gives them reason for confidence in their guidance of the Congregation. This makes it reasonable for Witnesses to be disposed to accept their teaching authority even when it is not infallible because their teaching enjoys the presumption of truth. So far as their conscience knows and understands that the Congregation has divine authority then their conscience tells them to submit. If a Witness doesn't believe the Congregation has divine authority then their conscience is not bound to follow it.
Now the question is if they can extend this binding of the conscience to particular doctrines that have been settled by the Governing Body for the past 100 years. 
Of course the teachings or claims to authority of the Governing Body to make sense they have to be reasonable and consistent and faithful, but their authority does not come from the strength of the arguments, or because Witnesses happen to agree with that teaching, or because it makes sense. If that were true, their teachings would have no more claim to their assent than it does to anyone else outside of their religion who happens to read their teachings on their website or publications.
So once a person locates, identifies and enters the Congregation, a shift takes place. Meaning their reason submits to this divine authority, where their reason no longer remains the ultimate judge concerning the truth of what the Governing Body teaches. Of course Witnesses search the scriptures, but not to determine whether their doctrines are true, but to seek to understand how they are contained and presented in scripture.
The reason I say this is because the Governing Body doesn’t seem to agree that the apostles anywhere in scripture exhorted other Christians to test the authority of the apostles against their own subjective interpretation of Scripture. (1Th 5:21; Ga 1:7-9; 1 John 4:1; Acts 17:11)
What I'm trying to get at is this. On the one hand JW's have a perpetual openness to correct their understandings of doctrines that deal with faith and morals as the discovery of new biblical arguments overturn current understandings. But on the other hand they are commanded to submit and obey to current teachings. If that is the case, there has to be a way to be able to distinguish between:
Beliefs(teachings/doctrines) that express what is revealed in scripture, thus an interpretation with divine authority.
and
Beliefs(teachings/doctrines) arrived by mere fallible human inferences or a human way of interpreting them.
This seems to create problems:
1) All of the Governing body's conclusions will remain fallible and provisional amounting to mere opinions.
2)If the Governing Body is fallible, and thus could always be wrong, then the assent witnesses render to their teachings are always tentative and subject to substantive revision.
3) It follows that they know next to nothing with any certainty.
4) They can never know with certainty if what they are having faith is a true expression or a true interpretation of scripture.
5)If the Governing Body is fallible how do Witnesses distinguish mere human opinions as opposed to a divine interpretation and how can they have faith that the interpretation is divine revelation?
So ultimately, the problem is if it’s possible for Jehovah’s Witnesses to exercise faith in the interpretations of the Governing Body if the five points above are true?
Do you guys agree with this assessment or is there another Framework the Congregation is operating under?
 
@xero It seems our epistemological stance is exemplified in the words of Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms:
"Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason. I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other, my conscience is captive to the Word of God."
Luther’s statement captures the very essence of our religious epistemology and his claim that his conscience was “captive to the Word of God” meant in actuality that his conscience was ultimately bound by his own interpretation of Scripture. 

It's possible for JWs to unify around the ever-fallible governing body you've described so long as that governing body does not ask those governed to ignore soundly reasoned conclusions.
Early Christians were subject to being stoned to death. But early Christians never stoned anyone to death.

What you're depicted here looks like a bifurcation to me, and, I think, a false one. The bifurcation is, essentially, either 1) your making your own interpretation or 2) you're not. I'll get back to this.
Your familiar with what internally we term "conscience matters". These are of things that are left to each person to decide without organized communal repercussion because different ones among us may legitimately hold different views on the same subject. Sometimes these different views might stem from different interpretations of information. But that's not always the case. Sometimes the difference in view is not because of an interpretation but, rather, because of a good solid logical argument. Logical conclusions are subject to veracity, but not interpretation. The conclusion of a logical argument is sound if its form is valid and its premises are evidenced. The level of veracity of a conclusion reached by a logical argument is determined by the strength of evidence for the argument's premises. The existence of "conscience matters" shows that different decisions can live in the same room.
So, back to my opening statement. The bifurcation you present is because there is an option other than simple interpretation. The option is making oneself accept conclusions of logical arguments, whether we like those conclusions or not. Logical conclusions have no bias, and are always falsifiable. I can say for certainty (because I've felt the pain!) that accepting certain conclusions has proven to be very hard, because of biases that I held. I have to force myself to accept a conclusion different than my preference because I couldn't deny the mathematical equation staring me in the face, especially after I verified its form and values over and over again to make sure. I was not submitting to what I wanted to accept (my preferential interpretation). I was submitting to something else.
Here's a scenario that's very real:
JW 1 conscientiously accepts multiple plasma exchange therapies with more than half his circulating blood replaced multiple times with cryosupernatant plasma donated by anonymous donors.
JW 2 conscientiously rejects multiple plasma exchange therapies with more than half his circulating blood replaced multiple times with cryosupernatant plasma donated by anonymous donors.
We respect both persons despite the fact that these two individuals hold diametrically opposing views on a life and death decision. We do this because both persons hold views that each had soundly reasoned to different ends based on premises applied within their respective logical arguments.
My point here when there are competing conclusions each of which is the result of a logical argument (in our case, as logical scriptural argument) then each conclusion should be respected, and the differentiation is not based merely on personal interpretation.
Christians are like anyone else. They need teachers. But teachers should teach us how to think, not what to think. If a teacher has a conclusion they think is solid the burden is on that teacher to demonstrate that conclusion is as sound as they would have us accept and act upon it. If they can't then they've failed as teachers, or we could have failed as students, or perhaps both have failed. But the burden is always on the teacher. Always. Of course, a student has a duty to learn as best they can. Otherwise they've cheated themselves.
Oh, and the two JWs above, they can remain unified in common cause despite their opposing differences, which is what unity is.
 

Thank you for the comments  @Anna The Bible is a holy book, but it is also a dangerous book, because if you don't interpret it correctly, you can be led into false beliefs. I could point to some groups where you would agree that their misinterpretation of Scripture has led to their spiritual destruction. 
@Many Miles I do not believe that for us (Witnesses) authority is identical to truth. Authority is moral power to which submission and obedience is due from those entrusted to it. But when I submit (so long as agree), the one to whom I submit is me. In other words, reducing authority to truth (or agreement by those under authority that the authority is speaking the truth), conceptually eliminates authority. That doesn't entail that every authority has equal authority. As Witnesses, we obey the rightful ruler of our country, but only under God's greater authority. If the president asks us to do something that violates our conscience, or would require disobeying Jehovah, we must serve God rather than men, because God is greater in authority than any creature. But, that doesn't entail that we must submit to the government only when we agree with the civil law or only when we agree that it is good for our country. We might think some laws are bad, but, so long as they do not require us to violate our conscience or the divine law, we must submit to them, because of their authority.
The authority of Scripture is authority with respect to divine revelation. The authority of the Governing body, is interpretive authority with respect to that revelation. These are two different types of authority. They do not compete but complement each other and are mutually dependent according to Witnesses. Witnesses believe that Christ has given divinely appointed men the authority of stewardship and the gift of explaining the Scriptures to His Congregation. So for a Witness the correct way of approaching Scripture is to learn and study it as informed by the guidance of the Congregation. 
That is the choice for a Witness, either they are going to trust and follow Christ by following a divine appointed authority that interprets the faith or follow Christ by determining for themselves and relying on their own judgment on how it is to be interpreted. The Witness who wants to subject the interpretive authority of the governing body to some other interpretive authority to hold them accountable is actually saying whether they realize it or not that they want the Governing body to be accountable to their own interpretation of scripture. This Witness is taking that authority to themselves. And that is another way of showing that the requirement is in essence a denial of their own need for a Governing body.
Some have been concerned that this amounts to authoritarianism. But we all (insiders/outsiders) have to understand the nature of the authority a Witness believes has been given to the Governing Body. If that wasn’t the case, to whom do they wish to make the Governing body accountable? For a Witness there is no higher interpretive authority on earth than the Governing body of the Congregation. So the idea of subjecting the Governing Body to something else presumes that there is something else on earth that has greater interpretive authority than the Governing Body.
So let me ask you guys, I'm assuming we are all Witnesses @Anna @xero @Many Miles @JW Insider   I think we are coming up against the common problem encountered when the authority argument is pressed to its last frontier. Namely, given that the fallible individual (us) must ultimately be the one to make the authority choice, it would seem that whatever authority is embraced will necessarily be tainted with the corruption of our fallibility and choice. If we claim that the Congregation is our authority, but we pick it as our authority, and retain it as our authority, on the basis of their agreement with our own judgment, then performatively they only have semantic authority (is our authority in name only) and is not functioning as our authority.
The apparent incoherencies start to appear when a Witness asks, if a fallible interpretative authority can bind the conscience?... let me explain. Witnesses are called to train or inform their conscience. Part of informing their conscience is coming to understand that the governing body has been divinely appointed as the teaching authority of the Congregation. So thru reason after examining the evidence (history, prophecy, other marks and signs) they come to have moral certainty that this authority comes from God, and that Jehovah has a Congregation, and that Jehovah's Witness are the Congregation Jesus established. So they enter and join this community of faith. A faith which is communicated in part in propositions. Propositions which are professed, believed and shared by its members. These propositions they appeal to, are revealed in Scripture and have to be interpreted by someone if they want to understand their meaning and assent to it. So there is no other way. For JW's it is reasonable to accept the Governing Body’s teaching authority when they interpret scripture because they believe they share the authority of the elders and apostles of the Jerusalem Council in the first century. They also believe they share the assistance of the holy spirit promised by Jesus which would guide them to the truth which gives them reason for confidence in their guidance of the Congregation. This makes it reasonable for Witnesses to be disposed to accept their teaching authority even when it is not infallible because their teaching enjoys the presumption of truth. So far as their conscience knows and understands that the Congregation has divine authority then their conscience tells them to submit. If a Witness doesn't believe the Congregation has divine authority then their conscience is not bound to follow it.
Now the question is if they can extend this binding of the conscience to particular doctrines that have been settled by the Governing Body for the past 100 years. 
Of course the teachings or claims to authority of the Governing Body to make sense they have to be reasonable and consistent and faithful, but their authority does not come from the strength of the arguments, or because Witnesses happen to agree with that teaching, or because it makes sense. If that were true, their teachings would have no more claim to their assent than it does to anyone else outside of their religion who happens to read their teachings on their website or publications.
So once a person locates, identifies and enters the Congregation, a shift takes place. Meaning their reason submits to this divine authority, where their reason no longer remains the ultimate judge concerning the truth of what the Governing Body teaches. Of course Witnesses search the scriptures, but not to determine whether their doctrines are true, but to seek to understand how they are contained and presented in scripture.
The reason I say this is because the Governing Body doesn’t seem to agree that the apostles anywhere in scripture exhorted other Christians to test the authority of the apostles against their own subjective interpretation of Scripture. (1Th 5:21; Ga 1:7-9; 1 John 4:1; Acts 17:11)
What I'm trying to get at is this. On the one hand JW's have a perpetual openness to correct their understandings of doctrines that deal with faith and morals as the discovery of new biblical arguments overturn current understandings. But on the other hand they are commanded to submit and obey to current teachings. If that is the case, there has to be a way to be able to distinguish between:
Beliefs(teachings/doctrines) that express what is revealed in scripture, thus an interpretation with divine authority.
and
Beliefs(teachings/doctrines) arrived by mere fallible human inferences or a human way of interpreting them.
This seems to create problems:
1) All of the Governing body's conclusions will remain fallible and provisional amounting to mere opinions.
2)If the Governing Body is fallible, and thus could always be wrong, then the assent witnesses render to their teachings are always tentative and subject to substantive revision.
3) It follows that they know next to nothing with any certainty.
4) They can never know with certainty if what they are having faith is a true expression or a true interpretation of scripture.
5)If the Governing Body is fallible how do Witnesses distinguish mere human opinions as opposed to a divine interpretation and how can they have faith that the interpretation is divine revelation?
So ultimately, the problem is if it’s possible for Jehovah’s Witnesses to exercise faith in the interpretations of the Governing Body if the five points above are true?
Do you guys agree with this assessment or is there another Framework the Congregation is operating under?
 
@xero It seems our epistemological stance is exemplified in the words of Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms:
"Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason. I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other, my conscience is captive to the Word of God."
Luther’s statement captures the very essence of our religious epistemology and his claim that his conscience was “captive to the Word of God” meant in actuality that his conscience was ultimately bound by his own interpretation of Scripture. 

😂I’ll do better on my next response. It’s difficult not following all these rabbit trails. I believe that fruitful authentic dialogue is focused dialogue. Be right back! 

😂I’ll do better on my next response. It’s difficult not following all these rabbit trails. I believe that fruitful authentic dialogue is focused dialogue. Be right back! 

@Many Miles Sorry for the delay. As you can verify, this comment runs to nearly 1,300 words; I had been working on it since this morning when I saw all your comments again this morning, but somehow life kept getting in the way. You know how that is, and sometimes ought to be. I'll only reply to two comments here and tie the rest of your points in a separate post.
I can see why it appears that way from your point of view. It truly required more faith to be a Christian in the first century in Galatia than what your advocating, precisely for this reason. From your perspective you only have to believe that Scripture is divinely inspired. The first century Christian had to believe not only that Scripture was divinely inspired, but also that the Congregation was divinely guided in interpreting and explicating the doctrines and teachings. So the rationalist solution it seems tried to cut out the need for a divinely appointed interpretive authority, by positing them to just allow the text to speak for itself. Such a proposal meant that in a certain sense, they didn't have to trust any human in order to exercise faith. All questions of faith could be verified or falsified to their own satisfaction, by examining the Scriptures for themselves. But, from the first century point of view, not trusting the Congregation in her divinely appointed role as steward and interpreter of Scripture, was a deficiency of faith. They were not called to trust Jehovah & Christ by trusting their own interpretation of Scripture, but to trust Jehovah & Christ by trusting the Congregation.
So there were two kinds of Christians. Those who I would call ecclesiological Christians, and those for whom being a Christian was primarily, if not exclusively, a matter of individual decision. Those whom the act of faith in Jehovah & Christ and the act of faith in the Congregation was one act of faith. And those for whom the act of faith in Jehovah & Christ was the act of faith, and the act of faith in the Congregation was secondary or somewhere down the line. If you put yourself in the time period of the first generation of Christians it is easier to understand what it meant to be an ecclesiological Christian. In order to put faith in Jehovah & Christ you would have needed to trust the Apostles and those appointed by them, who were taking the lead at that time.
I’m not suggesting in the least that anyone was violating their own conscience. As I said, I think what Paul is teaching in Galatians 1:6-8 is a middle position between a rationalism that tests all claims by one’s own interpretation of Scripture, and a mindless fideism that accepts as infallible whatever those taking the lead were saying regarding the faith.  According to Galatians 1:6-9 an individual must never go against his conscience. If someone taking the lead asked them do something that went against their conscience, they should not do it so long as it was in conflict with their conscience. But they had an obligation to determine whether their conscience was uninformed, or whether what the person(apostle, angel, overseer) was asking them to do was contrary to the teaching of the Congregation. If what the person(apostle, angel, overseer) was asking them to do was contrary to the teaching of the Congregation, then they were not to do it. But if they discovered that their conscience was uninformed, then they were to conform their conscience to the mind of the Congregation. 
So I’m speaking at the level of how they informed their conscience regarding what was false. Were they to go by their own interpretation of Scripture, or was there an authority to which they were to submit their interpretation? If they went by their own interpretation, then false teachings just meant any theological position that differed significantly from theirs, as determined by them. So these terms would become relativized.  Part of informing one’s conscience was determining the rightful ecclesial authority and its basis, and what doctrines had been taught by the Congregation. 
Better examples than Meribah that Illustrate what Paul was saying in Galatians is Aaron and the Levites.  The task of teaching the people from the law belonged especially to the priesthood of Aaron and his sons through every generation. After Moses wrote the law, he "gave it to the priests, the Levites, who carry the ark of Jehovah’s covenant, and to all the elders of Israel. (Deuteronomy 31:9) The Levitical priests had stewardship or “charge” over the law (Deut. 17:18). And when Moses gave his final blessing over each of the tribes of Israel, when he came to the tribe of Levi he prophesied: “Let them instruct Jacob in your judicial decisions, And Israel in your Law.” (Deut. 33:10) The Levitical priests were not only stewards of the scrolls, they were stewards of the proper understanding and explanation of what was written upon them. Jehovah told Aaron that throughout the generations of his sons, they were to “teach the Israelites all the regulations that Jehovah has spoken to them through Moses.” (Lev 10:11) When there were questions about the interpretation of the law, the people were to go up to the place that Jehovah would choose, where the Levitical priests were “ministering before Jehovah,” and they were to inquire the Levitical priests (Deut. 17:9), and the priests would hand down their decision. And in these cases the people were to do according to all the direction of the priests. “The man who acts presumptuously by not listening to the priest who is ministering to Jehovah your God or to the judge must die.” (Deut. 17:12) Moses exhorted the people to “be very careful to do according to all that the Levitical priests will instruct you” (Deut. 24:8) The Levites were to “answer every man of Israel with a loud voice” the curses of the law (Deut. 27:14).

The author of 2 Chronicles connects having the law, with having a “priest to teach,” precisely because the exposition of the law belonged to the Levitical priests. The author writes, “For a long time Israel had been without the true God, without a priest teaching, and without law.” (2 Chronicles 15:3) It wasn’t as though the scrolls were missing. But, without a teaching priest, it was as if there were no law. And when Jehoshaphat set out to restore the people to true worship, he did not simply make copies of the scrolls and have them each read them. Instead, he sent authorized teachers (including a group of Levitical priests) to the cities of Judah, to teach the people from the “the book of Jehovah’s Law.” (2 Chronicles 17:9) Likewise, it was no accident that Ezra the priest and the “ the Levites, were explaining the Law to the people... And they continued reading aloud from the book, from the Law of the true God, clearly explaining it and putting meaning into it; so they helped the people to understand what was being read.” (Nehemiah 8:7-8)

The  priests had their teaching authority not fundamentally because of any academic training they had received, but fundamentally because of their appointment from Aaron, whom God had divinely chosen to be the high priest, and to whom and to his descendants God had given the task of teaching and interpreting the law for the people. In this respect the Levitical priesthood was like the first century Governing Body, because the teaching and interpretive authority of the Levitical priests was not in virtue of their intelligence or academic training, but in virtue of their divine calling as descendants of Aaron. Same with the Apostles. Divine teaching authority in the Congregation is not reducible to academic authority. God chose the weak and foolish, fishermen and tax collectors, to be the foundation stones of the Congregation (Ephesians 2:20, Rev 21:14).

@Many Miles Sorry for the delay. As you can verify, this comment runs to nearly 1,300 words; I had been working on it since this morning when I saw all your comments again this morning, but somehow life kept getting in the way. You know how that is, and sometimes ought to be. I'll only reply to two comments here and tie the rest of your points in a separate post.
I can see why it appears that way from your point of view. It truly required more faith to be a Christian in the first century in Galatia than what your advocating, precisely for this reason. From your perspective you only have to believe that Scripture is divinely inspired. The first century Christian had to believe not only that Scripture was divinely inspired, but also that the Congregation was divinely guided in interpreting and explicating the doctrines and teachings. So the rationalist solution it seems tried to cut out the need for a divinely appointed interpretive authority, by positing them to just allow the text to speak for itself. Such a proposal meant that in a certain sense, they didn't have to trust any human in order to exercise faith. All questions of faith could be verified or falsified to their own satisfaction, by examining the Scriptures for themselves. But, from the first century point of view, not trusting the Congregation in her divinely appointed role as steward and interpreter of Scripture, was a deficiency of faith. They were not called to trust Jehovah & Christ by trusting their own interpretation of Scripture, but to trust Jehovah & Christ by trusting the Congregation.
So there were two kinds of Christians. Those who I would call ecclesiological Christians, and those for whom being a Christian was primarily, if not exclusively, a matter of individual decision. Those whom the act of faith in Jehovah & Christ and the act of faith in the Congregation was one act of faith. And those for whom the act of faith in Jehovah & Christ was the act of faith, and the act of faith in the Congregation was secondary or somewhere down the line. If you put yourself in the time period of the first generation of Christians it is easier to understand what it meant to be an ecclesiological Christian. In order to put faith in Jehovah & Christ you would have needed to trust the Apostles and those appointed by them, who were taking the lead at that time.
I’m not suggesting in the least that anyone was violating their own conscience. As I said, I think what Paul is teaching in Galatians 1:6-8 is a middle position between a rationalism that tests all claims by one’s own interpretation of Scripture, and a mindless fideism that accepts as infallible whatever those taking the lead were saying regarding the faith.  According to Galatians 1:6-9 an individual must never go against his conscience. If someone taking the lead asked them do something that went against their conscience, they should not do it so long as it was in conflict with their conscience. But they had an obligation to determine whether their conscience was uninformed, or whether what the person(apostle, angel, overseer) was asking them to do was contrary to the teaching of the Congregation. If what the person(apostle, angel, overseer) was asking them to do was contrary to the teaching of the Congregation, then they were not to do it. But if they discovered that their conscience was uninformed, then they were to conform their conscience to the mind of the Congregation. 
So I’m speaking at the level of how they informed their conscience regarding what was false. Were they to go by their own interpretation of Scripture, or was there an authority to which they were to submit their interpretation? If they went by their own interpretation, then false teachings just meant any theological position that differed significantly from theirs, as determined by them. So these terms would become relativized.  Part of informing one’s conscience was determining the rightful ecclesial authority and its basis, and what doctrines had been taught by the Congregation. 
Better examples than Meribah that Illustrate what Paul was saying in Galatians is Aaron and the Levites.  The task of teaching the people from the law belonged especially to the priesthood of Aaron and his sons through every generation. After Moses wrote the law, he "gave it to the priests, the Levites, who carry the ark of Jehovah’s covenant, and to all the elders of Israel. (Deuteronomy 31:9) The Levitical priests had stewardship or “charge” over the law (Deut. 17:18). And when Moses gave his final blessing over each of the tribes of Israel, when he came to the tribe of Levi he prophesied: “Let them instruct Jacob in your judicial decisions, And Israel in your Law.” (Deut. 33:10) The Levitical priests were not only stewards of the scrolls, they were stewards of the proper understanding and explanation of what was written upon them. Jehovah told Aaron that throughout the generations of his sons, they were to “teach the Israelites all the regulations that Jehovah has spoken to them through Moses.” (Lev 10:11) When there were questions about the interpretation of the law, the people were to go up to the place that Jehovah would choose, where the Levitical priests were “ministering before Jehovah,” and they were to inquire the Levitical priests (Deut. 17:9), and the priests would hand down their decision. And in these cases the people were to do according to all the direction of the priests. “The man who acts presumptuously by not listening to the priest who is ministering to Jehovah your God or to the judge must die.” (Deut. 17:12) Moses exhorted the people to “be very careful to do according to all that the Levitical priests will instruct you” (Deut. 24:8) The Levites were to “answer every man of Israel with a loud voice” the curses of the law (Deut. 27:14).

The author of 2 Chronicles connects having the law, with having a “priest to teach,” precisely because the exposition of the law belonged to the Levitical priests. The author writes, “For a long time Israel had been without the true God, without a priest teaching, and without law.” (2 Chronicles 15:3) It wasn’t as though the scrolls were missing. But, without a teaching priest, it was as if there were no law. And when Jehoshaphat set out to restore the people to true worship, he did not simply make copies of the scrolls and have them each read them. Instead, he sent authorized teachers (including a group of Levitical priests) to the cities of Judah, to teach the people from the “the book of Jehovah’s Law.” (2 Chronicles 17:9) Likewise, it was no accident that Ezra the priest and the “ the Levites, were explaining the Law to the people... And they continued reading aloud from the book, from the Law of the true God, clearly explaining it and putting meaning into it; so they helped the people to understand what was being read.” (Nehemiah 8:7-8)

The  priests had their teaching authority not fundamentally because of any academic training they had received, but fundamentally because of their appointment from Aaron, whom God had divinely chosen to be the high priest, and to whom and to his descendants God had given the task of teaching and interpreting the law for the people. In this respect the Levitical priesthood was like the first century Governing Body, because the teaching and interpretive authority of the Levitical priests was not in virtue of their intelligence or academic training, but in virtue of their divine calling as descendants of Aaron. Same with the Apostles. Divine teaching authority in the Congregation is not reducible to academic authority. God chose the weak and foolish, fishermen and tax collectors, to be the foundation stones of the Congregation (Ephesians 2:20, Rev 21:14).

It takes intellectual courage to do this. To investigate other positions fairly, and with an open mind, not only because we fear that we might currently be wrong, but also because we fear we might not presently know enough to keep ourselves from being deceived if we openly consider other positions. Intellectually stepping outside of one’s own tradition, and sincerely considering other traditions, takes courage and a kind of faith that there is truth to be found. Refusing to consider other traditions allows one to preserve the security of one’s own tradition. But for the truth lover, the risk of being deceived is worth taking, because one might presently be deceived, and the only way to find out is to start digging. That act of digging is like Peter’s act of stepping out on the water, it is uncertain, but it is willing to allow itself to be insecure and uncertain, in order that it might be lifted up by the truth.
I don’t think anyone is well enough to avoid error absolutely, but some people are better at avoiding error than others. When we work together as a community, we can help each other out, those with strengths in an area helping those with weaknesses in that area. So by jumping into the discussion, whether we are weak or strong, we can grow. When we look at someone’s evidence or examine an argument, it’s very important to determine if the assumptions and methodology at work in what people write or say are true. Once we know the difference we can begin to see who is using sophistry. 
As my friend said, "we have to eschew sophistry, and pursue truth, even when it hurts, even when it cuts us open, even when it takes away all our pseudo security and leaves us in a fog. Our heart must cry out: truth or die. We all know the Bonhoeffer line: “When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die.” But Christ is the Truth. And when Truth calls a man, he bids him come and die. Sophistry and truth-loving cannot go together; to choose one is to reject the other. If you wish to join us, you have to set aside sophistry, come and die with us, pursuing truth. Those who pursue truth also pursue charity and the unity to which charity is directed. Those who do not pursue truth, do not pursue charity and the unity to which charity is directed. For that reason, sophistry is incompatible with our mission. Only truth-seekers (who are the genuine unity-seekers) may truly participate here; sophists couldn’t participate in our activity, even if they tried. It might look similar, but it would be a completely different activity, and that would start to become clear as the sophists refused to refute objections to their arguments, or modify their position when it was shown to be false. To participate, they would need to turn away from sophistry and take up the cross of the truth-seeker.

It takes intellectual courage to do this. To investigate other positions fairly, and with an open mind, not only because we fear that we might currently be wrong, but also because we fear we might not presently know enough to keep ourselves from being deceived if we openly consider other positions. Intellectually stepping outside of one’s own tradition, and sincerely considering other traditions, takes courage and a kind of faith that there is truth to be found. Refusing to consider other traditions allows one to preserve the security of one’s own tradition. But for the truth lover, the risk of being deceived is worth taking, because one might presently be deceived, and the only way to find out is to start digging. That act of digging is like Peter’s act of stepping out on the water, it is uncertain, but it is willing to allow itself to be insecure and uncertain, in order that it might be lifted up by the truth.
I don’t think anyone is well enough to avoid error absolutely, but some people are better at avoiding error than others. When we work together as a community, we can help each other out, those with strengths in an area helping those with weaknesses in that area. So by jumping into the discussion, whether we are weak or strong, we can grow. When we look at someone’s evidence or examine an argument, it’s very important to determine if the assumptions and methodology at work in what people write or say are true. Once we know the difference we can begin to see who is using sophistry. 
As my friend said, "we have to eschew sophistry, and pursue truth, even when it hurts, even when it cuts us open, even when it takes away all our pseudo security and leaves us in a fog. Our heart must cry out: truth or die. We all know the Bonhoeffer line: “When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die.” But Christ is the Truth. And when Truth calls a man, he bids him come and die. Sophistry and truth-loving cannot go together; to choose one is to reject the other. If you wish to join us, you have to set aside sophistry, come and die with us, pursuing truth. Those who pursue truth also pursue charity and the unity to which charity is directed. Those who do not pursue truth, do not pursue charity and the unity to which charity is directed. For that reason, sophistry is incompatible with our mission. Only truth-seekers (who are the genuine unity-seekers) may truly participate here; sophists couldn’t participate in our activity, even if they tried. It might look similar, but it would be a completely different activity, and that would start to become clear as the sophists refused to refute objections to their arguments, or modify their position when it was shown to be false. To participate, they would need to turn away from sophistry and take up the cross of the truth-seeker.

@Many Miles 
1.) I don't the see how the addition of the Meribah passage helps the discussion since we are focusing in Galatians. Especially since you already stated there is a great disconnect from what Paul is saying and the Ground of Authority in the First century from what is practiced today. "Limited obedience to man" is not the best way to explain Geoffrey Jackson's ARC comments, nor what Paul was doing in Galatians nor what we Jehovah's Witness do everyday when we open the scriptures in my opinion.
2.) Your point about no one is suggesting of removing authority, was being addressed to @George88  not you, and his concerns about the burden of proof from those who are criticizing those in authority. The general rule is that those who seek to rebel against their God ordained authorities have the burden of proof. Moses, for example, would not have the burden of proof in a dispute between himself and Korah, regarding the interpretation of Scripture. Rebellion is not the default position, such that leaders have the burden of proof of showing that those under their authority should not rebel. Therefore, if we are criticizing the witness position we have the burden of proof. And the proof has to be just that, proof. It cannot be mere speculative exegesis or probabilistic hermeneutics or generalizations. If, for example, I am under the authority of my elders who are in agreement with the governing body and I want to form a division from them, I have the burden of proof of showing that they are wrong. My division would not by default be justified until the Congregation proves to me that I’m in the wrong. Otherwise every witness would be theologically justified in holding his beliefs or being in division until the Congregation made a sufficiently persuasive case to him that he is in the wrong. If a witness for conscientious reasons defied their JW overseers, and then defied the authority of the Governing body, by appealing to their own interpretation of Scripture. Even without the intention of doing anything wrong, and even if they didn’t realize their conscience was in error (and they should seek to inform it) their actions are still evil and sinful. An action can be objectively disordered and harmful, and one can be culpable for doing it , even if one does it with good intentions (good faith, clean conscience).
3.) Since we all affirm every verse in the letter of Galatians as true and inspired by the holy spirit, the disagreement is at the level of interpretation. Again, if we are glossing the essential role of the interpreter, I think we are going to thereby paint a misleading picture. Every time someone appeals to the Bible, they are appealing to an interpretation of the Bible. Also, it's very clear to me not only that exegesis and interpretation are two distinct arts, but also that interpretation depends in large part on philosophical assumptions that one brings to the interpretive process.  If we do not realize that we are even bringing philosophical presuppositions to the interpretive process, we will not be getting to the fundamental causes of our interpretive disagreements. I'm concerned that there is no point of discussing anything else until we reach an agreement concerning the essential role of the interpreter.
4.) I hear you they deserve an answer, but if we want to have a genuine dialogue, as distinct from just a polemical exchange that drains energy while persuading nobody, I suggest that we concede that our answers are not obvious and require defense, even if they happen to be true. Until we understand why that is insufficient even in principle, our participation here will be fruitless for all concerned. Millions of people also miss the following question: A bat and ball cost $1.10. The bat costs one dollar more than the ball. How much does the ball cost? Just because most people miss the question does not mean that we should change the correct answer to the answer most people give. Just for the record I know what 2 + 2 is 😂 

I understand. To the question of "Do you think Aaron should have stood is passive support of Moses at the incident of Meribah, just because Moses was anointed by God as His spokesman?
No.
Do you think Aaron should have acted to check Moses actions at that incident, despite Moses being anointed by God as His spokesman?
Yes, based on what I said after that. 
Your questions about rebellion, are in the context of the past three pages, they don't stand in insolation and the implications you are trying to draw, especially since you already admitted there is a great disconnect from what the Apostles where doing with their authority and what is being done today in the 21 century. 

Like I said, the solution to arguing this stuff in circles, is not to quit the discussion, but to argue in straight lines, in an ordered way. And usually it takes training to know how to do that, particularly, training in logic. I’m not going to claim having that. Without that sort of training, discussions will typically go in circles or move all over the place and down every rabbit trail. That's why a profitable discussion usually requires a trained guide or moderator, just as a profitable classroom experience requires a trained teacher. So whoever you guys think is more qualified take the lead. @JW Insider 😉
 
 

In the end we have to maintain a tender, but clean conscience. Regardless of who holds authority, saying we're just following orders may not be enough. Like Aaron should have done, we have an obligation to place our ultimate obedience to the ultimate authority. We should not act out of preference or bias. But if acting based on 1) what the Bible says explicitly or 2) acting based on a sound logical conclusion of what the Bible says explicitly is insufficient, then our worship is not our own. In that case, we are worshiping for someone else. But not for ourselves.
For the life of me, I have no idea why simple the question regarding Aaron's action at Meribah is so hard to answer. It's not a hard question. Everyone here should know the answer. Aaron put loyalty to Moses (God's spokesman) ahead of his loyalty to God. In that instance, that was Aaron's sin.
The idea of limited obedience appears to be a new concept. I don't understand this.

No one here, including me, is talking about anyone losing their authority. It is as David said of King Saul, “It is unthinkable, on my part, from Jehovah’s standpoint, that I should do this thing to my lord, the anointed of Jehovah, by thrusting out my hand against him, for he is the anointed of Jehovah.” Accordingly David dispersed his men with these words, and he did not allow them to rise up against Saul."
It is one thing to act to remove someone from authority whom God has place in authority. That is for God to decide. Whoever that might be, God put them there, not us.
It is another thing to give a man (or group of men) unlimited obedience. God has not asked for that. God always expects us to act in good conscience to put Him first ahead of any other loyalty, or authority. This is the sin Aaron was guilty of at Meribah. When Moses said "we" at Meribah he was speaking of himself and Aaron. Aaron knew better, and so did Moses for that matter. It was God providing the miraculous provision of water, not Moses or Aaron. By not stepping up and checking Moses' actions to give the glory rightfully to God, Aaron was disloyal to God. This despite the fact that God had told Moses that he was "God" to Aaron. Aaron put his loyalty to Moses ahead of his loyalty to God. Aaron could have acted to check Moses, and he didn't.
The same person cited above (David) refused to act in a way that would, in effect, remove Saul from his appointed office. But David also refused to give limitless obedience to Saul. Saul, the anointed of Jehovah, said to David, "Come back". Instead, David "proceed to go his way". (See 1 Samuel 26:21-26)
Paul too addressed the notion of limitless obedience in his introduction to Galatia. As presented earlier, this is not a matter of personal interpretation, of giving preference to personal bias.
 

@Many Miles Come on now! Hold on a second. I think we are getting too far afield and need to bring back the discussion to the beginning because otherwise we are just talking past each other. Let’s put a pin on Aaron , because I’m also getting frustrated with your comments. You’re so eager to criticize, that we are loosing track of what is entailed by your admission (limited obedience in regard to interpretative authority) or namely the structural problem of not having any ecclesial authority. That is what is entailed by granting that Witnesses may at any time reject what their ecclesial authority says, so long as they disagree with them. If we may reject our ecclesial authority whenever we disagree with them, then there is no ecclesial authority. That’s the implication of that concession. When I submit (so long as I agree), the one to whom I submit is me, and then notice that if you were doing just that, i.e. submitting to a person (or set of persons) because we agree with their general interpretation of Scripture, nothing would be different than it is right now. At that point, we realize that the, we cannot reject those taking the lead, line is just a slogan, something we say to hide the unpleasant truth from ourselves that underneath it all, we’re just surrounding ourselves with persons who generally say what we agree with, and on that basis treating them as though they are authorities. But in actuality, it is all a charade, the one in charge is us. This is the contradiction I’m concerned we live, generally not allowing ourselves to see it, keeping the contradictory propositions compartmentalized, so that we can we can pull them out whenever we want, to preserve the charade of being under authority.
So I understand (and share, to some degree) your frustration. In other words, it takes a lot of hard work from all parties to a discussion to agree on even a narrow proposition and, depending on the work committed, THE discussion can either be a labor of love or a waste of time. Much of the hardest work, the real nitty-gritty of discourse, is dedicated to coming to agreement on language and the meaning behind language. This process is far less glamorous than scoring points. Too often in discussions, I see people respond to a challenging narrow proposition (the matter at issue) with a broad “shotgun” critique of the other person's overall position. A ‘shot-gun’ approach is not conducive to genuine dialogue aimed at coming to agreement concerning the truth. 

Like I said, the solution to arguing this stuff in circles, is not to quit the discussion, but to argue in straight lines, in an ordered way. And usually it takes training to know how to do that, particularly, training in logic. I’m not going to claim having that. Without that sort of training, discussions will typically go in circles or move all over the place and down every rabbit trail. That's why a profitable discussion usually requires a trained guide or moderator, just as a profitable classroom experience requires a trained teacher. So whoever you guys think is more qualified take the lead. @JW Insider 😉
 
 

@Many Miles @George88 Witness recognize a hierarchy of authorities, similar to what the centurion in Scripture says in Matthew 8:9 and Luke 7:8, and found clearly in the epistles. The authority of someone lower in the hierarchy does not subvert the higher authority, but depends upon it, without reducing to it.
So applying the Apostles’ statement (Acts 5:29) to Aaron that we should obey God rather than men in is not a rejection of divinely established hierarchy. It is rather the claim that when human authorities oppose divine authority, then we must obey divine authority. Thus, rightly interpreted, the truth that we should obey God rather than men is not a justification for rebellion against divinely established authority, it is rather a recognition that rebellion against God on the part of those who have been given such authority does not require those over whom they have been given authority to follow them in that rebellion; indeed, we must not follow rebellious leaders in their rebellion against God. At the same time, the standard for obedience to God isn’t one’s own interpretation of Scripture, such that any leader who doesn’t conform to one’s own interpretation of Scripture is ipso facto in rebellion and therefore can rightfully be disregarded. That notion would eliminate the very possibility of a Governing Body.
I’m concerned we are perhaps glossing over the essential role of the interpreter and the interpretative framework they each bring to scripture.
So in order to determine whether it's right for us Christians to go against the Congregation's authorities, (like your example of Aaron) we need to know the principled difference between those situations in which one is justified in acting against the Congregation authorities, and those situations in which one is not justified in acting against them. Otherwise, the individual JW could treat every case in which he disagrees with the Congregation as a case justifying his acting against the Congregation. The Bible is just as adamant against vigilante Christianity as it is about false prophets. You will not find anywhere in the scriptures vigilante Christians ever praised for rebelling against lawfully ordained authority on the basis of their private interpretation of scripture. There being a standard by which acts of both the Governing Body and those who hold the office can be judged (and ought to be judged) is fully compatible both with Jehovah's Witnesses not being their own ultimate interpretive authority.
So no one is expecting any JW to be a blind follower, but God does expect them to distinguish between when they have such prerogatives and when they don't.
Jesus nor the apostles opposition to the authorities of their time serve as precedent, since they themselves were the new authority in Israel, as God’s Son and his commissioned apostles. Jesus opposers (Jewish leaders) were the lawfully-ordained authority of their day, when Jesus rebukes them is from one authority to the other not a case where someone on the basis of his private reading of scripture rebels and tries to correct those taking the lead (seat of Moses).
So we need to back up and answer a prior question. How do we rightly determine the criteria by which those taking the lead lose their ecclesial authority? Until we answer that question, we cannot determine objectively whether any particular leader has or has not lost his ecclesial authority, and we thus run the risk of rebelling against a rightful ecclesial authority. That's a very serious error that we shouldn't trivialize or take lightly. When the Amalekite reported to David that he had found Saul impaled on his spear, still living, and that he had killed King Saul, David's response was this, “Why did you not fear to lift your hand to do away with the anointed of Jehovah?” (1 Sam 1:14) Likewise, we too ought to have this kind of fear lest we be rebelling against the LORD's anointed ecclesial authority. That's why we need to know with certainty how to determine rightly what are the objective criteria by which those taking the lead lose their ecclesial authority, before we conclude that they no longer have ecclesial authority.