James Thomas Rook Jr.

Genetics works EXACTLY the same way for all living things.  The wider and deeper the gene pool, the better the quality of ALL DNA based life forms.
What CTR said is certainly politically incorrect by today's Snowflake Standards,  but I, after carefully reading these words, would have to totally agree with them, as being incontrovertibly true.
My first wife and her sister and a brother were born with Cystic Fibrosis, a truly awful death guaranteed, where every day, you die a little bit at a time, until you can no longer breathe, and after years of painful torment, are released , usually with a heart attack from the struggle, before age 30.
I have my own set of problems, but she died in 1982. ( ...LOoooong story ...).
We decided to NOT have children.    Too high of a risk to future generations.
Genetically, with my "problems". I was of inferior genetic stock, and she was of inferior genetic stock,    Like soup stock, you get out of it what you out into it, and neither one of us wanted those genes continued.
I am ONLY talking about genetics ... not intrinsic value, here.
By the way ... this disease, Cystic Fibrosis is EXCLUSIVE to marshmallow white Caucasians.
So I thought about this a great deal, and learned basic genetics, as all I knew was from reading Robert A. Heinlein books, such as "Methuselah's Children", and "Time Enough for Love" .... and went searching for a woman that had a little bit of EVERYTHING in her genetic makeup.
I found one in Peru ..... Caucasian, Spanish, Peruvian Indian, Negro, etc.
It worked EXACTLY as I anticipated, and my three children are POWERHOUSES, any way you want to measure it. Also as an added plus!, they have a "built in", year around permanent tan, that I have tried to get, but with fading results.
I suspect they are embarrassed to be seen with me, as I cannot compete.
Genetics works EXACTLY the same way for horses, mosquitoes, vegetables, fruits, dogs and cats .... AND HUMANS.
It is ARROGANCE to think that past genetic "encounters" do not affect peoples, nations, and races in a progressive manner with multiplying effects.
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
IT MEANS OVER TIME, IT'S CUMULATIVE
....sigh ..... if only the stupid would JUST be smart enough to not breed.
Jehovah gave a LOT of attention and instruction to the Jews ...  even ordered them to go far afield to Assemblies of HIS people (not any others),, where presumably young men and women would meet others from a widely diverse gene pool.
If you have the opportunity to swim in the gene pool .... you get better results if you do not swim in the shallow end ... or more to the point ... your PARENTS did not.
 
 

Definitions vary from time to time, and place to place ....... and whether or not an otherwise very fine Elder has a Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome Flashback, of when he was humiliated in Mrs. Grundy's Math Class in the 7th grade, and made him sit in the corner wearing a dunce cap, and he cried, and everybody laughed at him, and he wet his pants, and they had to call his mother to pick him up from school ..... at the same time you are bouncing off of him this new idea you just had about something-or-another theological in nature, and you used unapproved words, and previously Society unapproved concepts.
The next thing you know, you are in "Room 101" defending yourself from a Tribunal of Judges who accuse you of brazenly apostatizing to an Elder.
THAT's why we need to have a complete and direct and comprehensive definition as to how the Society sees the word BRAZEN ... it looks like they have run out of material, anyway.
A LONG time ago, but more particularly since they are not making up stuff about Armageddon's timetable, and types/anti-types, anymore.
A whole Watchtower, or perhaps just 18 paragraphs, if the explanation does not try to recount the history of every other word that also starts with a "B", to fill up all 18 paragraphs.
 

Might sound archaic in America, but not long ago I heard someone (non JW) in England describe a frivolous woman as a "brazen hussy". Usually this term is used in jest.

Genetics works EXACTLY the same way for all living things.  The wider and deeper the gene pool, the better the quality of ALL DNA based life forms.
What CTR said is certainly politically incorrect by today's Snowflake Standards,  but I, after carefully reading these words, would have to totally agree with them, as being incontrovertibly true.
My first wife and her sister and a brother were born with Cystic Fibrosis, a truly awful death guaranteed, where every day, you die a little bit at a time, until you can no longer breathe, and after years of painful torment, are released , usually with a heart attack from the struggle, before age 30.
I have my own set of problems, but she died in 1982. ( ...LOoooong story ...).
We decided to NOT have children.    Too high of a risk to future generations.
Genetically, with my "problems". I was of inferior genetic stock, and she was of inferior genetic stock,    Like soup stock, you get out of it what you out into it, and neither one of us wanted those genes continued.
I am ONLY talking about genetics ... not intrinsic value, here.
By the way ... this disease, Cystic Fibrosis is EXCLUSIVE to marshmallow white Caucasians.
So I thought about this a great deal, and learned basic genetics, as all I knew was from reading Robert A. Heinlein books, such as "Methuselah's Children", and "Time Enough for Love" .... and went searching for a woman that had a little bit of EVERYTHING in her genetic makeup.
I found one in Peru ..... Caucasian, Spanish, Peruvian Indian, Negro, etc.
It worked EXACTLY as I anticipated, and my three children are POWERHOUSES, any way you want to measure it. Also as an added plus!, they have a "built in", year around permanent tan, that I have tried to get, but with fading results.
I suspect they are embarrassed to be seen with me, as I cannot compete.
Genetics works EXACTLY the same way for horses, mosquitoes, vegetables, fruits, dogs and cats .... AND HUMANS.
It is ARROGANCE to think that past genetic "encounters" do not affect peoples, nations, and races in a progressive manner with multiplying effects.
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
IT MEANS OVER TIME, IT'S CUMULATIVE
....sigh ..... if only the stupid would JUST be smart enough to not breed.
Jehovah gave a LOT of attention and instruction to the Jews ...  even ordered them to go far afield to Assemblies of HIS people (not any others),, where presumably young men and women would meet others from a widely diverse gene pool.
If you have the opportunity to swim in the gene pool .... you get better results if you do not swim in the shallow end ... or more to the point ... your PARENTS did not.
 
 

Inside WTJWRG Institution one thing is of crucial importance. Who are those people who have authorization to govern, rule, lead this organization and people who are members/believers? Who are those people who represent JHVH and Jesus and their Will?
In this WT article authors tried to explain history of this.  https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-study-february-2017/who-is-leading-gods-people-today/
Why this article is interesting (again) in connection to topic? Here is some quotes from pages of this article:
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?
.... Jesus had given his followers a commission: “You will be witnesses of me in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the most distant part of the earth.” (Acts 1:8) How could they possibly complete that assignment? True, Jesus had assured them that they would soon receive holy spirit. (Acts 1:5) Still, an international preaching campaign required direction and organization. To direct and organize his people in ancient times, Jehovah used visible representatives.
Famous paragraph 12:  The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. 
As we can see from box in WT magazine under question Can you explain? author AVOID to use direct word "Inspired" and instead this explicit sort of spirit manifestation as it is commonly viewed while reading Bible (for example, to write holy scriptures, to tell something as prophecy or command from God, to heal the sick....etc) author put word - empowered by HS. And now author give factual example from 1 century:  
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. For example, in 49 C.E., holy spirit guided the governing body to make a decision regarding the issue of circumcision. 
Author highlights 2 things. First is ROLE of OVERSEEING. And second is about MAKING DECISIONS. In contrast or continuation to this  1 century example, author of article later emphasized this:  
In 1919, three years after Brother Russell’s death, Jesus appointed “the faithful and discreet slave.” For what purpose? To give his domestics “food at the proper time.” (Matt. 24:45)......
Evidence of holy spirit. The holy spirit has helped the Governing Body to grasp Scriptural truths not previously understood. For example, reflect on the list of beliefs clarified that was referred to in the preceding paragraph. Surely, no human deserves credit for discovering and explaining these “deep things of God”! (Read 1 Corinthians 2:10.)
Here we have just statements of author who firmly say that FDS aka GB been appointed by Jesus in 1919. But another thing is something what call on more alarm. As Evidence of holy spirit is, situation when this Body grasp something as Truth under holy spirit helping or empowering. 
In this explanation one thing is very questionable and somehow danger. In period from 1919 (we shall not talking about 1 century GB or about Angel Assistance today) this entity who "share" food under title: Bible Truth, with supposed help of holy spirit, in fact they had  spread "Fake Truths", they later changed into "Real Truths".  Some doctrines they  produced in few steps as yes-no-yes ... truths. Here we comes to possible conclusion how reason for that errors, according to this article, was not in Human Representatives of Jesus here on Earth. No, reason and cause for that is in holy spirit who has "empowered" them in that confusing way and direction.
Because other two elements in this equation (assisted by angels +  guided by God’s Word) was not been sufficient and powerful enough to correct wrong direction made by empowering influence of holy spirit. :)))) 
Here we see how "blame" for errors and imperfect food can be found in the same reasons why food can be good and eatable too, after some period of time (in refrigerator :))), of course. The way how this article try to prove the credibility of GB for task of sharing the food,  becomes nonsensical.
But, pay attention to this: 
empowered =
having the official authority or freedom to do something  https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/empowered
having the knowledge, confidence, means, or ability to do things or make decisions for oneself                       https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empowered 
Here we see how this definition changed our view on issue and article. Why they used word EMPOWERED in connection to spiritual food? In fact, according to Dictionaries, WT magazine talk about Power of GB Over People. Here it is not ISSUE about Food Quality, Truth or Lie, Perfection or Imperfection. IT IS ALL ABOUT CONTROL.  

Africa Inland Mission tie, eh?
Perhaps that is what the scripture meant when the Greek word for "brazen" which literally means "in-continent" (per Outta Here) was used.
Either peeing without self control, or being inside a continent, such as Inland Africa.
.... Depends!

Well, as Charles Taze Russell said (heavily paraphrased) in the first issue of the Watchtower, which had his byline "C.T.R.", as the author .. "The Truth is the Truth, no matter what the source... If Satan told you the Truth, it would still be the Truth".
A similar thought was expressed in the Dr. Seuss book, "Horton Hears A Who".

THAT ... passes the "smell test".  It makes good common sense.
Still, I would like the Society to expound and codify it.
To protect the innocent from being caught in the Dragnet of a witch hunt for foggery and mopery, with smoke and mirrors. 
The G.B., and Elders almost always have the very best of motives, but not always.
Also, motives, and competence are two entirely different things.
Just WANTING to do what is right is not enough ...
Ever read the book "The Peter Principle"?
EVERYONE eventually can get promoted, based on merit to a level where they are no longer competent.
A stellar Ministerial Servant becoming an Elder, can become a Beserker, through incompetence, with the very best of heart condition and motivation. Occasionally, you will find one as dumb as a stick, who understands NOTHING, not written in stone.
...that's why God used to write things in stone!
The issue has been ignored for almost ten years now.
 

I don't think they "enjoy" doing wrong ... it's just that they have fallen into the trap that EVERY shamen, witch doctor, priest, or respected religious leader falls into when they start accumulating money, real estate, and camera time.
That's what that job does to people.
In the entire history of the human existence of directly created Man, in over six thousand years, and from sea to shining sea, there has only been ONE exception.
 

"Depends" is a brand name for nappies for the incontinent.   
 

I get it. To be born again, you first have to dye.

Of course, being born again is being born (one time) PLUS being born (a second time), or "BORN + BORN," not to be born SQUARED, which is "BORN x BORN." Then again, I think Jesus said the sons of darkness are better at math than the sons of light. Or something like that.

As an "aside," I also want to comment on the prominence of James, himself.
For years I just assumed that the prominence of James was somewhat by accident, due to a rotation of the chairman of the Governing Body, and basing this idea on the article that introduced the modern Governing Body in 1971:
*** w71 12/15 p. 759 A Governing Body as Different from a Legal Corporation ***
Apparently, the apostle Peter was the chairman of the governing body on the festival day of Pentecost of 33 C.E., and the disciple James, the half brother of Jesus Christ, was the chairman at a later date, according to the account in Acts of Apostles. From this, and from what historical evidence there is available, the chairmanship of the governing body rotated, just the same as the chairmanship of the presbytery or “body of elders” of each Christian congregation rotated among the coequal elders.—1 Tim. 4:14.
What I hadn't realized at the time was that the term "what historical evidence there is available" was nothing at all, so that the rotation evidence sentence could have said "From this, and no other evidence at all, the chairmanship of the governing body rotated." And of course, the referenced scripture, 1 Tim 4:14, says nothing about a chairmanship of the "body of elders" rotating, either.
(1 Timothy 4:14) 14 Do not neglect the gift in you that was given you through a prophecy when the body of elders laid their hands on you.
So we should look again at when the prominence of James first shows up:
It's true that he seems to have the last word in the Acts 15 scenario:
(Acts 15:6-22) 6 So the apostles and the elders gathered together to look into this matter. 7 After much intense discussion had taken place, Peter rose and. . . .13 After they finished speaking, James replied: . . . . It isn't definitive that he was head of a rotating chairmanship, but it's still true that Peter and James are mentioned here as speaking in leadership capacities.
Also, earlier, when Peter gets out of prison his first statement is:
(Acts 12:17) 17 But he motioned to them with his hand to be silent and told them in detail how Jehovah had brought him out of the prison, and he said: “Report these things to James and the brothers.” . . . And a statement Paul makes about the order of Jesus' appearances after his resurrected, and another statement that shows that persons were just as interested in James and his brothers as the 12 apostles, so that they were so often mentioned together.
(1 Corinthians 15:5-7) .5 and that he appeared to Ceʹphas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that he appeared to more than 500 brothers at one time, most of whom are still with us, though some have fallen asleep in death. 7 After that he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. (1 Corinthians 9:5) 5 We have the right to be accompanied by a believing wife, as the rest of the apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Ceʹphas, do we not? Years after Acts 15, Paul comes back to Jerusalem, and the first named person he meets with is James, and a group of elders, this time to discuss nearly the same issue relative to Jewish Christian believers, not Gentile Christian believers as had been discussed previously.
(Acts 21:17-19) 17 When we got to Jerusalem, the brothers welcomed us gladly. 18 But on the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. 19 And he greeted them and began giving a detailed account of the things God did among the nations through his ministry. So based on the evidence, it's probable that there never was a rotation system, and James continued to hold a very prominent, perhaps the most prominent leadership role in the Jerusalem congregation: the COBE, possibly from prior to Acts 12 all the way up to Acts 21 and beyond.
Also, as the Bearing Witness books notes, neither Peter nor any of the other apostles are mentioned in Acts 21, so that it is ONLY James and the elders. The book assumes that the apostles might no longer be in Jerusalem. I don't know how this might affect the original "governing body" in Jerusalem theory.

I'm pretty sure that everything you said in this post was true. But with some caveats that I'd like to highlight. If we take Acts 15 as fully parallel to Galatians 2, as you and Outta Here have done, then I agree that we should not consider the apostles and older men of Jerusalem to be "Judaizers." In Acts, Peter and James are fully credited with doing things correctly, and all blame is placed on the sect of the Pharisees and believers like them.
Evidently, in my opinion, this sect of the Pharisees, or similar Judeans pushing circumcision, were seen (by the Galatians at least) as getting their authority from men like Peter, James and John. Therefore Paul warns them, in my opinion, that even if it were Peter, James and John, or even an angel, that they should not submit. But Paul never says it wasn't them giving authority to the Judaizers. He never exonerates Peter, James and John. He even goes so far as never to actually call them "pillars" but couches their authority in language like "seemed to be pillars" and that it wouldn't matter who they were anyway, because they are just men, and Paul isn't trying to please men. Of course, in other places, and here, too, Paul also goes into a discussion of where his own authority comes from and why no one could say that any of Paul's authority came from Jerusalem. As in at least two other places, Paul sees fit in this context to compare his own authority, with that of the apostles in Jerusalem. 
It seems that if Paul were trying to exonerate Peter, James and John, (as Acts 15 does) then he would not be expected to add so many phrases that diminish their authority, and he would have no reason to highlight his independence from Jerusalem. He surely could have exonerated them by mentioning the decree that they had agreed to. If Paul had still considered this decree authoritative, it was the perfect answer to the Galatians who thought that James and Peter were on the side of circumcision, and the whole problem with the Galatians would be over. On another note, Paul doesn't even mention the "decree" in any of his letters. The closest he gets to discussing the decree is in 1 Corinthians 8, where he appears to contradict what it said about eating food sacrificed to idols.
However, I now believe I was mistaken in trying to tie this Judaizing so directly to Peter and John. And @Outta Here has me thinking it might not apply to James either. Not that they ever were ACTIVE Judaizers, but I thought Paul was including Peter's example, because Peter had publicly sided with the Judaizers even though admittedly temporarily. This had put a stamp of authority on the Judaizers which allowed Paul's audience to believe that those apostles with authority over Paul actually had the last word on circumcision. Judaizers were spoken of as being smuggled in, rather than just coming of their own accord. And Paul said that these men were "from James" implying that James, another man of great reputation and authority among the apostles at Jerusalem, had given a stamp of authority to the Judaizers.  
I'm not yet convinced, as Outta Here seems to be, that saying that a group of Judaizers came from James, is really about the same as saying that a group of Judaizers came from Judea. If he had said, "from John" would that also just mean "from Judea"? I'm sure that Paul is at least saying that James knew their beliefs and that he had sent them, purposely, perhaps not to engage with Paul to subvert him, but to listen carefully to what he was saying to gentile converts about the Mosaic Law. James would therefore be admitting tacitly that he expected a potential problem would need to be resolved and the people he sent would have been most sensitive to what Paul was teaching.
I also don't know if we can say that they worked things out so "amicably" but things did finally work out over time. I mention this for the same reason I mentioned a transition period that is indicated in Acts between chapters 15 and Acts 21. In fact, I think if we look closely at Acts, that it's easy to see that Luke's goal was to leave out a lot of detail when it detracted from the minimum that a Christian needed to know about the past. I'll get to that later, and the rest of this post will just be a background for later reference before talking about the way Luke/Acts selects details.
I once tried to reconstruct the timeline of Acts from the chronology markers, to match it up with Galatians and others of Paul's letters, and this is much easier to do now with the Internet (and the Bearing Witness book), and so many online reference works available. It might seem like a waste of time, but it might give also us some insight into the types of things Luke includes in Acts and what he leaves out. That might not seem important now, but for me, it was a key part of my overall opinion (which could be partially or completely wrong, of course) along with a comparison between Acts, Galatians and the letters to the Corinthians.
Here we can also compare Acts 21:20-26 to Acts 15:
(Acts 21:20-26) . . .After hearing this, they began to glorify God, but they said to him: “You see, brother, how many thousands of believers there are among the Jews, and they are all zealous for the Law. 21 But they have heard it rumored about you that you have been teaching all the Jews among the nations an apostasy from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or to follow the customary practices. 22 What, then, is to be done about it? They are certainly going to hear that you have arrived. 23 So do what we tell you: We have four men who have put themselves under a vow. 24 Take these men with you and cleanse yourself ceremonially together with them and take care of their expenses, so that they may have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know that there is nothing to the rumors they were told about you, but that you are walking orderly and you are also keeping the Law. . . . 26 Then Paul took the men the next day and cleansed himself ceremonially along with them, and he went into the temple to give notice of when the days for the ceremonial cleansing would be completed and the offering should be presented for each one of them.
By this time, Paul had been teaching that Jewish persons need not follow the customary Jewish practices. And by this time, Paul had already been saying that if anyone gets circumcised, then they are under obligation to keep the entire Law. Undeserved kindness+faith was being contrasted with works of Law as the "path to salvation," but by the time Ephesians was written, undeserved kindness+faith was apparently being contrasted with good works of any kind as a path to salvation. Paul had already been teaching about circumcision and extending it to mean any type of putting oneself under law, just as trying to gain salvation by works had extended past works of Law to any good works. Ephesians 2:8-17.
Note that these verses were written to uncircumcised believers, but with an obvious application to circumcised Jewish believers, too:
(Colossians 2:13, 14) . . .He kindly forgave us all our trespasses 14 and erased the handwritten document that consisted of decrees and was in opposition to us. He has taken it out of the way by nailing it to the torture stake. (Galatians 5:2-6) . . .See! I, Paul, am telling you that if you become circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 Again I bear witness to every man who gets circumcised that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. 4 You are separated from Christ, you who are trying to be declared righteous by means of law; you have fallen away from his undeserved kindness. 5 For our part, we are by spirit eagerly waiting for the hoped-for righteousness resulting from faith. 6 For in union with Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any value, but faith operating through love is.
(Romans 2:28, 29) . . .For he is not a Jew who is one on the outside, nor is circumcision something on the outside, on the flesh. 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.
The bt book mentions these same scriptures and notes that this case in Acts 21 depicts Paul becoming a Jew to those who are Jews to hopefully win them over.
(1 Corinthians 9:20) 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew in order to gain Jews; to those under law I became as under law, though I myself am not under law, in order to gain those under law. So far none of this is a problem to understanding it the way you (Anna) have presented it.

I liked Thayer's glossary definitions included in the post linked below. But to avoid diverting people off to another topic, I'll just repost that definition:
But it's not a terrible translation, as it really was used in Greek with reference to "brazen hussies." (shameless hussies, and wanton hussies - and brazen hustlers, too, for that matter.) Literally, it meant people who were not so moral as those good folks up in the town of Selge, Pisidia, Asia Minor. It's much better than the old translation in the NWT (loose conduct) which was actually a mistranslation because it implied lesser moral infractions of a more general variety.
Note Thayer's:
ἀσέλγεια, -ας, ἡ, the conduct and character of one who is ἀσελγής (a word which some suppose to be compounded of the α privative and Σέλγη, the name of a city in Pisidia whose citizens excelled in strictness of morals [so Etym. Magn. 152, 38; per contra cf. Suidas 603 d.]: others of α intensive and σαλαγεῖν, to disturb, raise a din; others, and now the majority, of α privative and σέλγω equivalent to θέλγω, not affecting pleasantly, exciting disgust), unbridled lust, excess, licentiousness, lasciviousness, wantonness, outrageousness, shamelessness, insolence:Mark 7:22 (where it is uncertain what particular vice is spoken of); of gluttony and venery, Jude 1:4; plural, 1 Peter 4:3; 2 Peter 2:2 (for Rec. ἀπωλείαις), 2 Peter 2:18; of carnality, lasciviousness: 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 4:19; 2 Peter 2:7; plural "wanton (acts or) manners, as filthy words, indecent bodily movements, unchaste handling of males and females, etc." (Fritzsche), Romans 13:13. (In Biblical Greek besides only in Wis. 14:26 and 3 Macc. 2:26. Among Greek writings used by Plato, Isocrates and following; at length by Plutarch [Lucull. 38] and Lucian [dial. meretr. 6] of the wantonness of women [Lob. ad Phryn., p. 184 n.].) Cf. Tittmann i., p. 151f; [especially Trench, § xvi.].
 

Just as the word "Gay" means something COMPLETELY different than when you and I were growing up ... perhaps the word back then meant something like urinating in public, or dressing in such a way that was immodest if one was incontinent.
With our track record of being right about such things, it may have originally meant anything at all EXCEPT what the Society officially tells us is the case.

We seem to have world class problems understanding the simplest common sense things .... like what a "Generation" is. Everyone else on the planet uses ONE definition, and always has ... except us.
I cannot even imagine the Apostles understanding what Jesus said the way we are told to.
That's why I want the GB "OFFICIAL" explanation, which may or may not have anything at all with standard definitions, common sense, or reality. 
They really ought to tell us what definitions we are actually using to make determinations of what is, and what is not "brazen conduct", so that the excesses that all humans are subject to do not cause irreparable harm when being applied ... because we are being governed BY AND WITH those definitions.
This is NOT a new issue ... and REMAINS unresolved, since 2010, almost a decade ago.
Historically, the record of "straight shooting", and accountability has been terrible.

The way things are progressing, I wonder when they select a new member of the Governing Body, the "Helpers" will have white smoke come out of that Watchtower at the main entrance of Warwick Bethel ?.....

The Society never apologizes for anything they totally screw up ....  and to the best of my knowledge, NEVER has apologized for anything in ruining peoples' lives, historically,  .... because they can just change the definitions of what words mean ("new light"), or where it is to their advantage to do so to push the agenda,  keep them so ambiguous, they can mean ANYTHING.
Here is the test (and perhaps I am wrong because I missed it somewhere along the line ... please correct me if I am wrong ....):
How EXACTLY does the Society define "Brazen Conduct"?
What is included?
What is excluded?
How about ten or so REAL WORLD, CONTEMPORARY unambiguous examples?
To the best of my knowledge ... currently it can include anything the Elders don't like.
If I am wrong, please point it out to me, and I will change my viewpoint, and embarrassed, beg your humble pardon.
I think we need an 18 paragraph unambiguous, non touchy-freely and non scripturally recursive,  direct and comprehensive Watchtower Article on this ONE topic only .... instead of the usual circular logic topics reiterated, over, and over, and over, and over ...
...and over and over and over and over.
I am sure I would stay Awake!, for THAT one.
 
 

I did not agree with all of your post, where I quoted from you the above comment ... but I "upvoted" it anyway, because I know your quoted cringeworthy statement is true.
... just any JW try it at the next Watchtower Study.
.... raise your hand and ask a tough question, using unapproved words.
.... after the meeting, you would have to get back to the parking lot through infamous "ROOM 101".
This was first "legally" established in the not-so Super Secret 2010 Elders' Handbook, with the  term "Brazen" conduct, which was a catch-all that could include ANYTHING ..... and when it hit the fan that there was no Biblical backup for this,  three years later the 2013 "Silver Sword" NWT came out with the word "Brazen" several times ... WITH THE WHOLE BIBLE PARAPHRASED, of all things ... THE WHOLE BIBLE "SIMPLIFIED" ... to back up  the direction given three years earlier.

... ever notice that the Popes all look all worn out and hunched over, threatening to fall and impale themselves on their bejeweled  gold sheep catcher sticks ?
... makes me tired just watching !
It's the 30 pounds of clothes, the 8 pound gold crosses, and 15 pound two-story hats glued on with denture cream..
...  a lot for ANY 82 year olds.
Seven more pounds  .. same as a bag of concrete!

I never thought of the WTB&TS as having a hierarchy ... the thought never crossed my mind ... perhaps because they did not have the clown suits that the Catholic Church, Russian Orthodox Church, and many others have .... until:
1.) In several court transcripts where the Society was confiscating real estate from local congregations, and the congregations sued the Society, the Watchtower Lawyers declared and asserted under oath that no individual person owned the Kingdom Halls, and that they had the right to appoint and remove trustees in whose positions the Kingdom Halls were titled, BECAUSE, the Organization WAS a hierarchy, EXACTLY like the Catholic Church, and that the "Church" owned all Jehovah's Witnesses'  property, everywhere,  no matter whose name it was in, or how it was titled, and,
2.)  In child sexual abuse cases, the Society in many places, many times has asserted in secular courts, under oath, that the Elders are Clergy, and are entitled to "Clergy-Penitent Privilege" of confidentiality, and as such were not legally obligated to report the crimes.
I had never EVER heard these things asserted at the Kingdom Halls, and in paying attention since 1962, was frankly stunned by these sworn testimony (under oath)  assertions, declarations and/or admissions in the secular civil courts.
That is why I read full transcripts of the Society's court cases, when I find them ... as what is said at the Kingdom Halls, and what is said in court ( ... under oath ... ) is quite often  two (or more ...) dramatically different things.
I never remember any Kingdom Hall assertions, that we were "Clergy", entitled to any special legal privileges ... only that we were "Ministers", and could assert that our commission as ministers was equal to clergy's "ordinations" ...  although I remember from circa 1974-82  that the ex-Bethelite Pioneer Brother that ran off with my first wife  liked to witness in the jails and prisons, as he would pull the "Minister Card", and they would give him clergy privileges to go in and out any time it suited him.
Perhaps the next step is start baptizing young children, and have some kind of special JW clown suits like Christendom has ..... perhaps with a Nautical theme.
I often wonder about the Catholics' Heirchy ... where do they get those 15 pound hats?

Well, JWI did weigh in on my take on what he had to say .... without objection. 
So I PROBABLY interpreted Galatians as JWI emphasized it correctly.
Since, if that is the case.... that was Paul's opinion, perhaps I saw it because I ALREADY believed it.
It was completely consistent with my own personal experiences, communicating with the Governing Body.
You know the old saying ....
"If I had not believed it, I would not have seen it."
Perhaps JWI will further comment to clarify, But the first chapter of Galatians is ALREADY quite clear.
I am not immune to agenda driven WDS, either.
The difference is, that it embarrasses me.

This is why the Governing Body in Jerusalem did not add any further burden to the Brothers .... it was mid winter and bitter cold when Paul entered Jerusalem.

YEAH!
I had not realized to what extent Paul went to to completely avoid any interaction with the Jerusalem Apostles, AKA the "Governing Body.!
I THINK THIS IS IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO SAVE THIS WHOLE PAGE FROM THE TOP, , TO KEEP IT IN CONTEXT, SO I MADE A .JPG, WHICH IF YOU FEEL SO INCLINED, YOU CAN DOWNLOAD.

Pillargate?