George88

I agree it is essential to scrutinize every post on this platform (or elsewhere), placing importance on scriptural support and principles above any biases or allegiances.

@Many Miles So let me express some concerns and review the previous points you have made.  But before that, here's another concern or a great caveat:

15 “If your brother or sister[b] sins,[c] go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[d] 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
The first assumption about someone's "sin" is that someone's action is really "sin". The second assumption is whether it is a "sin" that requires intervention. A further condition is based on the mutual relations between the one who rebukes and the one who is potentially rebuked. Is the "sin" committed directly to the one who wants to rebuke. Or it is someone who is not personally involved in the "damage" that was done to someone. Is it even about damage that someone personally suffers, or is it outside of such a context (someone took a blood transfusion, for example, so it is not damage caused to us personally). The condition would also be set as to whether I have the knowledge and skills to explain what is actually wrong and what is the solution to the problem, because that is, like, the first and basic reason why someone should be approached (ie win over a brother).
However, the problem arises in the legislation of "sin". Because sometimes a sin is a crime. Although it is theologically possible to conclude that in fact every sin is a crime, a crime against God, so it's actually a complicated situation.
If "sin" is rape or theft, etc., then our participation in all this is actually problematic. Is the purpose of our intervention to persuade the offender to turn himself in to the police or to just repent of his actions?
However it all turns out in the end, every person is actually a "neighbor", even an unrepentant sinner. Because there are many walking around the world who do not repent of their sins, and yet we should consider them our neighbors, regardless of what knowledge about them we have or not.
I would understand that I am not being greeted by someone whom I have personally harmed. It is easily possible that I would have retaliated in kind if someone else had wronged me. I am "imperfect" after all. :))
Furthermore, the question is who and what is a "congregation". Judicial Committee or the entire community of believers?
What in today's WTJWorg procedure is close/equal to that of the 1st century? Is the interpretation of today's GB a faithful imitation/copy of the actions of the 1st congregation?
Is it the authority of the individual and the congregation to judge only the "moral and doctrinal" transgressions of its members, or does this authority also apply to all other sins/crimes? Because the Bible speaks of "higher powers that carry a sword to punish". Is WTJWorg then allowed to punish or pardon the sin/crime of its members instead of those whom God has "ordained to that position"?

I think this is the first time I'm reading this comments from Anna and JW Insider.
I really like their observation about how fewer JWs notice the wrong things coming from GB. There are several reasons for this, in my oppinion. "Boundless" trust in those who lead the Organization from America (I'm talking about many who don't live in the USA, so that part is far for them, which is due to the literal distance, and also because of a perhaps fairy-tale idea about people they've never seen or heard of and never could until digital connectivity came along. Consider that this was especially evident for that part of Eastern European countries until 1990 and other parts of the world with limited communication in many ways as further factor)
People notice things with more or less confidence in their own judgments. However, this is perhaps more obvious when it comes to some more everyday, physical topics. When it comes to theology itself, most (of them, of us) don't even have time to deal with it that much, so that part of  brain activity is slowed down or underdeveloped, so to speak. Also, the idea that after becoming a JW they came "to the truth", came "to have the truth", becomes an obstacle and a trap, because now I am "safe, God is with me, he protects me because I believe in him and his organization". Furthermore, people are different and their current interests and circumstances, age, gender, length of time spent in the "organization", psychological and emotional development of the individual, etc. all affect our current awareness or unawareness of what is happening around us.
About "guide by spirit"
I think there is a difficulty in using this term because we don't really agree on the true meaning and purpose of such an idea. 
When GB uses that phrase about "being guided" it means something different from the words "led, guided by". Look at what it says, how explains this in the WT - https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-study-february-2017/who-is-leading-gods-people-today/. 
 
CAN YOU EXPLAIN?
In the first century and today, how have those taking the lead among God’s people been . . .
empowered by holy spirit?
assisted by angels?
guided by God’s Word?
.........5 Christians in the first century recognized that the governing body was directed by Jehovah God through their Leader, Jesus. How could they be sure of this? First, holy spirit empowered the governing body. (John 16:13) Holy spirit was poured out on all anointed Christians, but it specifically enabled the apostles and other elders in Jerusalem to fulfill their role as overseers........
 So today's GB refers to the pattern from the 1st century as legitimacy for its roles today. But here in the text of this magazine it speaks of some kind of "empowerment", not "guidance", also not "poured out on". (Being empowered and guided shouldn't be the same, right?)
But despite this terminological difference or similarity of terms and meanings in use, the WT passage uses the 3rd term to denote the operation of the same Power. It says that the spirit was "poured out" on those in the 1st century. So, three terms are used here to confirm exactly the same position of the Apostles and the position of the GB. Both of them are in a position to legitimately act on followers due to the action of HS. On the other hand, they say that there is a difference between these three words, and the biggest difference should be through the use of the 4th term through the meaning of the word "inspired".
Although all these words are associated with HS and should prove that HS acts on people in one way (to do God's will), it turns out that it is still not possible to achieve the same results during this superhuman action and that HS does not actually have the same power of action today as it had in the past. Because His biggest disadvantage is that  He is not able to "inspire" people today. He could only do that in the distant past. Why can't HS do that today? It turns out that he can't perhaps because God doesn't allow him, or because today's people don't have something that people in the 1st century had, or something else is the cause. WTJWorg claims that HS cannot "inspire" people today, is final result of GB theology.
If this is so, then there is no need to prove one's current Administrative status by comparing it through the structure of the existence of leadership in the past, which then arose only because of the action of HS which caused people to be "inspired".
 In the past, our publications have said the following: At Pentecost 33 C.E., Jesus appointed the faithful slave over his domestics... 4 The context of the illustration of the faithful and discreet slave shows that it began to be fulfilled, not at Pentecost 33 C.E., but in this time of the end. Let us see how the Scriptures lead us to this conclusion....Therefore, we may conclude that his words about that faithful slave began to be fulfilled only after the last days began in 1914. Such a conclusion makes sense... In recent decades, that slave has been closely identified with the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses. - https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/w20130715/who-is-faithful-discreet-slave/
Although WTJWorg explains that Jesus' words about the FDS were not fulfilled on the Apostles in the 1st century, but only from 1919, GB insists that they actually took over the governance model based on the established 1st congregation over which the Apostles were Hierarchical superiors. It is another in a series of inconsistencies. How could something that did not exist then (FDS aka GB class), in the past, become a model for what exists today?
 
The illustration of the faithful slave is part of Jesus’ prophecy about “the sign of [his] presence and of the conclusion of the system of things.”  - https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/w20130715/who-is-faithful-discreet-slave/
On what basis did WTJWorg turn the illustration into a prophecy? When can we expect other biblical illustrations and parables and comparisons to become prophecy?
 
Assisted by angels
Second, angels assisted the governing body. Before Cornelius was baptized as the first uncircumcised Gentile Christian, an angel directed him to send for the apostle Peter...Moreover, angels actively promoted and accelerated the preaching work that the governing body was overseeing. . - https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-study-february-2017/who-is-leading-gods-people-today/
For me, it is a superhuman effect on people and their actions. How can angels exert their influence and HS cannot? Experiences that were heard or read by JWs and were publicly published support the idea of superhuman intervention. Controversial to the existing idea of HS not being able to do what angels do.
"Directed, promoted, accelerated by angels" are additional words indicating superhuman action.    
Guided by God's Word
Third, God’s Word guided the governing body. Whether they were settling doctrinal issues or they were giving organizational direction, those spirit-anointed elders were led by the Scriptures. - https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-study-february-2017/who-is-leading-gods-people-today/
GB says, we hear that on JWTV, they meet and discuss, brainstorm, confront ideas, etc. It's a clash of minds and ideas. A completely normal human activity. Brainstorming and similar methods are called "guided by" the Bible. So what is the difference with "guided by HS"?
 

in the original context, the difference was that Angus Stewart asked "do you see yourself as modern-day disciples?" A lot of people use the term "Jesus' disciples" as synonymous with his original direct "twelve disciples." Of course, Bro Jackson could answer that the GB definitely see themselves as modern-day disciples. [Those taught by Jesus.] The GB also definitely see themselves as modern-day "sent-forth ones" which is the meaning of the word "apostles." And they do speak of themselves in several ways as a modern-day parallel to the apostles, or even as a kind of parallel to the small number of men who ended up writing all the books of the Christian Greek Scriptures. But Bro Jackson knew the danger of trying to explain these "parallels" to a non-JW so he steered clear of it by even pointing out that they, the GB, do not consider themselves to be the sole channel (mouthpiece) of truth today. Mr. Stewart had clearly been prepped with the knowledge that the Watchtower has many times pointed to the Watchtower publications and/or the Watchtower Society as the sole channel for dispensing truth today. This idea has been repeated very directly during the time of Russell, Rutherford and Knorr/Franz, but much more subtly in recent publications. 

Thanks for sharing that piece of video. I had not recollected that part, if I ever saw it at all. He gave quite a bit of testimony.

What he says does, as you suggest, stop short of saying that if JWs see something the society asserts as a belief is incorrect that they should then reject it as false; that in such a case the governing body should be accursed, to borrow Paul’s term to Galatia.

It’s noteworthy here that Jackson went on to say the governing body is the guardian of doctrine and beliefs hence it is the decision maker about interpreting what they Bible says. If it’s true that all JWs can read their Bible and know what is correct vs incorrect teaching, then why a need for interpretation by anyone?

Taken together, this is pretty circular. In essence he’s saying we can tell if what the governing body says is true based on what the Bible says, but the governing body is who has the final say about what the Bible says. If what the Bible says is what the governing body asserts it to say then what the governing body says is not falsifiable, which makes the notion useless in terms of rational thought.

So, on one hand it’s nice to see a contemporary governing body representative acknowledge that we can read our Bibles for ourselves to determine correctness of teaching, yet the same representative stops short of saying we should hold them as accursed if we find what they say is false. That’s the difference between what Paul did in writing Galatia compared with our contemporary governing body. At no point does our contemporary governing body say there is a point at which they should be rejected. Paul and the early apostles did that. The society does not.

Sure you can .….
….. and should!
Paul wasn’t dragging around 15 billion dollars in Real Estate.
The GB cannot do “magic tricks”.
 

OK  OK OK …..
So it doesn’t take much to get me started.
Let’s compare the Apostle Paul to the very earliest  Governing Body ….
 

Reality checks are best done by comparing theory with reality.
Were the Jehovah’s Witnesses marched out of Nazi concentration camps to cargo ships to be sunk and drowned rescued by God, or the American and Allied forces?
The “litmus test” is actually DOING the testing.

After all those words, and you cannot say …
I like my system better.

@Pudgy Feel free to call the five absolute true statements of the Bible as Gobbledygook. The stakes are far too high to treat this as a game, and treating as profane what is consecrated to God is the sin of sacrilege, which is grave matter, so  I don't need to spell out the seriousness of that error.
@Pudgy When each person is deciding for himself what is the correct interpretation of Scripture, Scripture is no longer functioning as the final authority. Rather, each individual's own reason and judgment becomes, as it were, the highest authority, supplanting in effect Scripture' unique and rightful place. That approach results in us becoming a law unto ourselves and Scripture is interpreted according to our conscience and reason. Everything is evaluated according to our final standard and "opinion" of what is and is not scriptural. We, not Scripture, is the real final authority according this approach. The Bible nowhere gives any hint of wanting every individual believer to decide for himself and by himself what is and is not the true meaning of Scripture.
Following what I said in a previous post, Congregations/ Churches can maintain natural authority, just as the leaders and laws of voluntary civic societies have natural authority over those who wish to be members of such societies. This sort of authority, however, can never bind the conscience in an unqualified way, but it can bind the conscience regarding what one must do if one wishes to participate in that congregation or civic society.
The state is a natural society, but the Congregation is a supernatural society. Authority in the natural order is divinely established, as the New Testament teaches. For this reason, kings, princes, presidents and mayors are to be obeyed, unless they command us to violate our conscience,  or to violate the divine law. Voluntary civic societies also can have internal laws, and hence dutifully appointed leaders. Anyone who wishes to participate in such societies must be subject to these leaders and laws. This is true of sporting leagues, philanthropic organizations, educational organizations, etc. But the authority had by the leaders and laws of voluntary civic societies is still natural authority, i.e. on the natural order. It is divine only in the providential sense, not in the supernatural sense. It remains at the level of nature. Hierarchy and authority are natural to human society, whether that society be the immediate society into which we are born (i.e. the family), the larger society into which we are born (e.g. USA), or voluntary societies which we form or enter (e.g. Rotary Club).
Human opinion remains human opinion, whether it is private or public, held by one person or held by a group of persons. Take a group of persons each having the same theological opinion. They discover that they share this opinion, form a club, and then make adherence to this theological opinion a condition for continued membership in their club. Their opinion has not thereby acquired any divine authority just because this group of persons made adherence to this opinion a condition for club membership. Rather, the club leaders having the [merely human] authority to exclude others from this club (as do leaders of the Elks club, the Rotary club, etc.), are exercising their own authority in making adherence to this opinion a necessary condition for club membership.
Thus the so-called 'authority' of the theological opinion is in actuality a cover for the governing authority of the club leaders, masking the actual locus of authority. That would be ok if the club leaders were divinely authorized to determine which theological opinions are orthodox and which are not. But, if the club leaders don't have such authority (and don't claim to have such authority), then the club and its theological opinion are no more authoritative than any other person's opinion. It is just a club, and since its leaders have no divine authority, their theological opinion has no divine authority. Their theological opinion is a condition for membership in that club, but it is still only an opinion of men.
@Srecko Sostar I have no interest in your legal and lawyer arguments, I deal with theology.
Now, you know that I am Jehovah’s Witness, not a good at that, but still identify as one. Our relation to the act of consent of becoming a Witness, can take one of two forms. Either we inherit it by being born into it (like a child born into a religion), or we choose to participate in that act of consent (either by joining the institution or by forming an institution). But even the child eventually chooses either to participate in that act of consent (by remaining in the institution) or not (by leaving that institution). So ultimately, if ecclesial authority comes from man, then it has its ground in the consent of the individual. In other words, if ecclesial authority comes from man, then its authority over me is grounded in my consent. If I do not consent to the authenticity of that ecclesial authority, then it has no authority over me. That is precisely why your local Episcopalian priest, Presbyterian pastor, Baptist pastor, Catholic priest, charismatic pastor, etc. have no authority over you or me. You have not consented to their authority, and thus not given them authority over you.
One does not sign a legal contract when one joins a church. That is why anyone in the Jehovah's Witness community or  Catholic or Mormons or any of the 8,000 denominations can (and should) leave as soon as he realizes that it’s  not in the true Congregation that Christ established, but in a counterfeit institution. Even if Catholics, Evangelicals etc.… or JWs or Mormons did sign legal contracts upon becoming members, they should violate those contracts as soon as they recognize that they are false religious institutions. No one is under an obligation to fulfill an oath that would require injustice to fulfill. We are not to give ourselves to false shepherds, or false religious institutions. We should give ourselves (in religion) only to the Congregation Christ established. That is why all false religious institutions have no actual authority, for men not only owe others (i.e. the true shepherds) the obedience that these false shepherds illicitly receive, but men are required by God not to give their obedience to false shepherds.
On another note, when I hear people say that they just want people to be "faithful to the word of God," what they really mean is that they want them to be faithful to their own interpretation of Scripture. And that is why there is an implicit presumption of governing authority in the very claim they are making. As for statements about conscience, of course I agree that a person must never violate their conscience. But, a person with a poorly formed conscience can do much evil without violating his conscience. And therefore it is incumbent upon us all to seek to inform our conscience, so that it may be a more reliable guide.
A large portion of Christians, including believing Ex-JWs at some level resonate with Luther's statement at the Diet of worms, "My conscience is captive to the word of God, and it is neither safe nor wise to act in violation of one's conscience." Precisely. This is the fundamental principle of this framework, the principle of the individual as his own ultimate interpretive authority.
 
 

…

No it did not help.
To me the whole thing was just rationalizing gobbledegook.  
I don’t care if you believe it or not, but if you are an Elder or the Governing Body you can  … and do … ruin my life and family relationships if I don’t believe pretentious crap.
The Society never needed more than one book of hard facts (besides the Bible), easily understood and to the point, without the pretentious crap.
But NOOOoooo …. they came out with really good NWT of the Bible, and then PARAPHRASED it, so the crap was justified.
 

… “Food at the proper time” means different things to different people.
Ice cubes should probably not be made with hot dog water.
 

@Srecko Sostar Your cynicism It’s not a consequence of Ecclesiastes 8:9. JW’s teach that “the existing authorities” can be said to “stand placed in their relative positions by God.” Relative to Jehovah’s supreme sovereign authority, theirs is by far a lesser authority. However, they are “God’s minister,” “God’s public servants,” in that they provide necessary services, maintain law and order, and punish evildoers. (Romans 13:1,4, 6) https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/library/r1/lp-e/all-publications/watchtower/the-watchtower-1996/may-1
People outside of the JW community are capable of imitating God righteousness and mercy: “The apostle Paul comments on the conscience, or at least a vestige of such, that still persists in fallen man, even though in many cases he has strayed from God and does not have his law. This explains why all nations have established many laws that are in harmony with righteousness and justice, and many individuals follow certain good principles. Paul says: “For whenever people of the nations that do not have law do by nature the things of the law, these people, although not having law, are a law to themselves. They are the very ones who demonstrate the matter of the law to be written in their hearts, while their conscience is bearing witness with them and, between their own thoughts, they are being accused or even excused.”—Rom. 2:14, 15. https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/publication/r1/lp-e/ad/3090
Here’s what you are missing about human nature : Unity with non-Christians is not something to be desired (other than to convert them), but we need to distinguish between different types of unity.Obviously we cannot be spiritually united with those who do not share our faith. And this is why we ought not marry unbelievers. But, we can and should strive for civil peace with unbelievers.  Paul teaches us "If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men." (Rom 12:8) The author of the letter to the Hebrews similarly writes, "Pursue peace with all men" (Heb. 12:14). And civil peace is a kind of unity. We can and should pursue the common good in society, together with unbelievers. They too have a conscience, and the desire for the common good in civil society. They too want peace in our society, a clean environment, safe neighborhoods, order and beauty in society, just judges, etc. In other words, in the realm of the civil society, we have a great deal of common ground with unbelievers, as we pursue with them a civic unity, the unity of a civil society in its pursuit of the temporal welfare of that society. And again, that's because faith builds on and perfects nature, faith does not destroy nature. So the same civic goods we rightly desired as unbelievers, we still desire as Christians, along with those who are still unbelievers.
You seem to think that what is heavenly or supernatural, must be the opposite of what is human and of nature.
Of course a tyrant does not serve those whom he rules. But tyranny is an abuse of government, not the proper use of government. The true ruler of any society serves that society through his leadership. Hence, when Jesus says that the Apostles should not "lord it over" them, as the Gentiles do, Jesus is not contrasting leadership in the Kingdom with the way leadership in the state should be (as though civic leaders should not serve those whom they lead). Jesus is instead contrasting leadership in the Kingdom with the way leadership in the state often is, i.e. tyrannical.

The way I look at it is this:
When Armageddon comes there is absolutely NOTHING I can do to avoid it, or hurry it up, or slow it down.
This is God’s War, not mine. Obviously the Creator of the Universe is going to win.
Just like the three Hebrews in the fiery furnace, if it occurs in my lifetime, I intend to just sit back and watch the show!
…. and perhaps eat popcorn, and microwaved big greasy hot dogs!

I think what SS was referring to, or alluding to was what  if Russell and Rutherford had been  Chinese …. so rourd the irrustrations in the Socrities pubrications.

in that respect I see no difference between Jehovah’s Witnesses management team and any number of corporate, government, or military organizations such as the US Treasury Department, the United States Marines, or the Environmental Protection Agency.
As the number of legs on the spider grows, it subtracts from the brain, until it is all legs, and no brain.
This is NORMAL.
Justice we get from Jehovah God…… All else, and I mean ALL ELSE , is merely due process that we are due, but sometimes it’s justice, and sometimes it’s just due process.
it’s like those sliced square lunch meats with the pimentos and olives in them. 
I like fat greasy hot dogs like bratwurst, microwaved until the sodium nitrite preservatives squirt out and the skin splits … knowing the danger.
Pick your poison.
…. or don’t eat.
 
 
 

That is what is called “ The Hook”.
Appealing to  man’s better nature …. sometimes for what turns out to be nefarious ends.
Sometimes ….

“When your own thoughts are forbidden, when your questions are not allowed and our doubts are punished, when contacts with friendships outside of the organization are censored, we are being abused, for the ends never justify the means. When our heart aches knowing we have made friendships and secret attachments that will be forever forbidden if we leave, we are in danger. When we consider staying in a group because we cannot bear the loss, disappointment and sorrow our leaving will cause for ourselves and those we have come to love, we are in a cult… If there is any lesson to be learned it is that an ideal can never be brought about by fear, abuse, and the threat of retribution. When family and friends are used as a weapon in order to force us to stay in an organization, something has gone terribly wrong.”
― Deborah Layton, Seductive Poison: A Jonestown Survivor's Story of Life and Death in the Peoples Temple