James Thomas Rook Jr.

I don't really know any of them. I know how the position got there, and I know what doctrines and practices they promote. It's because I accept most of those doctrines. 100 percent of the important ones, in my opinion. I don't think of them as a "governing body" except in a functional sense as decision makers who try to keep the teachings as consistent as possible for the sake of unity around the world. This is a positive thing about Jehovah's Witnesses that a consistent set of teachings can be accepted by millions of persons without disorder or contentiousness. The method used produces a danger of making it too easy to accept (and "enforce") false doctrines in the same way, but there are very few "false doctrines" in my opinion. If, in your opinion, there are many false doctrines, or if the specific ones you believe are false are that important to you, then I understand why your judgment of them would be different than mine.
Yes. I think they are making a mistake in this regard too. But, in general, only a very small minority of those claiming to be anointed seem to think things should be different. I'd wager that the vast majority of them believe they are being well represented by them. Also the GB do not necessarily think of this position as "over" the rest of the anointed. Remember that the service they provide is a ministry of a "slave." One of the ministries that Paul spoke of was the ability to "administer." A portion of the idea that this puts them "above" the rest may spring from the mind of fleshly persons who cannot distinguish a specialized service from being special. However, the idea that they form some kind of tribunal that should judge other anointed, or that others should be obedient to is probably wrong, imo. It might, in fact, spring from the fleshly, unspiritual understanding from their own minds. This doesn't reduce the value of the kind of work they can accomplish in such a unique circumstance, but it is one of the dangers that could befall any of us imperfect humans.
(1 Corinthians 10:12) . . .So let the one who thinks he is standing beware that he does not fall.
You may have pointed out a danger, or it could be that less educated are more humble and more receptive to spiritual truth. Therefore a decision has been made to focus the efforts on an audience that should have been focused on even more in the past. A simplified Bible, with simplified publications to go with it, and a simpler study method might all be good things, even from the perspective of Luke 14:11.
Personally, however, I agree that it has been like a pendulum swing to a slightly "simpler" audience after saturating a more sophisticated audience until further efforts on that latter audience appeared wasted.
Many current Witnesses have the idea that this is a kind of "dumbing down" of the audience resulting in a dumbing down of the new ones coming in. If persons are overly concerned about that, perhaps it is based on their own prejudices or an unrequited desire to show off just how sophisticated their own knowledge might be. In our congregational setting, the goal is love for one another. This should be even easier if all of us show more childlike love for one another, and can stop taking ourselves so seriously.
I think deliberate is a strong word to use with "err." For the most part, I think all the mistakes have been well-meaning. There are some mistakes that reveal a different kind of mental conflict, in my opinion. These can be looked at as deliberate mistakes. Sometimes it can include a deliberate choice to avoid a change when it seems a change is necessary both Biblically and practically. Sometimes it can be from a lack of courage or self-confidence. Similar to Peter and the "James gang" the organization has had a historical problem with cultishness. This is admitted in our own publications that there was a Russell cult. Fred Franz was steeped in that exact kind of cult thinking (parallel dispensations, numerology, date predictions, etc.) so that this mentality remained strong and respected until Fred Franz died. He had so much respect as an "oracle" that all these "class" definitions and prophetic explanations were never challenged much until a few years after he died. So some mistakes are more about deliberate hanging on to tradition, which blinds people to the validity of God's word. This kind of blindness is wrong, but not necessarily "deliberate."
Why would 12 be too many? 8 is about the same. 20 is about the same. Considering the new abilities of technology and the much greater size of the current congregations of JWs compared to the first century congregations, perhaps 1,000 would not be too many, or perhaps there is a way to allow millions to have input, and merely allow a secretary or a technology application "bot" to filter out the noise and produce a consensus. I don't think we'd be quite as comfortable with that. Humans tend to like hierarchies of people, representative government, etc., in spite of the potential errors.
Some do. I'm sure of it. But my point was that a hierarchy of people are in place to filter out and merge communications so that the GB aren't bothered by any and every little thing that comes up. Notice that in a response to something Outta Here said I quoted:
(1 Corinthians 1:11, 12) 11 For some from the house of Chloʹe have informed me regarding you, my brothers, that there are dissensions among you.
Paul had no problem "snitching" about where the information came from, and noted they had been able to get their issue to Paul directly, and Paul addressed the issue in his letter. There is a lot of secrecy in these communications today that I think is unnecessary. And there are stories of repercussions by those who used their own name.
Well, I'll stop here.

I agree 100 percent with everything you said up to this point, and then, of course, I paused a bit at this statement. I expect that it should apply to me as well as others. This was a powerful bit of counsel, and I'm re-evaluating my own position on what Paul is saying in Galatians and the letters to the Corinthians. The details of that re-evaluation will be based on the specifics in Anna's posts, which I'll get to as time permits.
I'd like to respond to this, but it's probably too soon, as I might end up taking back my current understanding. In that event, I apologize in advance, to any who were (or would be) unduly influenced by my own opinions and understandings. 
Of course, I would still like to say a little about what I think you are saying here. 
I don't think Paul had disdain for those taking the lead. He had a disdain, or worse (condemnation and "curses") for anyone who interfered with persons who had accepted the "good news." (Matthew 18:5-6, Jesus expressed a "millstone curse" for the same reason.) But this was not a general or continued "disdain" that held a grudge or couldn't forgive when he looked at the overall picture. I assume that Paul did not continue to consider Peter or James as stumbling blocks to the ministry after things began cleared up during the transitional time between Acts 15 and Acts 21. (Jesus didn't permanently call Peter, Satan, when he was a stumbling block.)
I assume Paul is speaking to the Galatians this way, because the Acts 15 meeting had already happened and yet the Galatians evidently still BELIEVE (for some reason) that there was authority (from somewhere) for demanding adherence to Jewish law that somehow overrode the message that Paul had already taught them.
Paul gives the Galatians an earlier example of this same problem on the same issue (where circumcision was the central issue, but by extension it must have also meant adherence to Jewish law and practice. See Galatians 5:2,3). In this earlier example the problem was focused, he says, on certain men from James, who caused Peter be afraid of the circumcised class, and who influenced Peter and Barnabas, so that Paul called them out on their hypocrisy. Paul told Peter face to face that he "stood condemned." (see NWT footnote or Greek Interlinear.) This appears to follow up on Paul's earlier words that anyone who declares as good news something beyond which they had accepted should stand "accursed."
(Galatians 2:11, 12) 11 However, when Ceʹphas came to Antioch, I resisted him face-to-face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men from James arrived, he used to eat with people of the nations; but when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcised class. (NWT, with footnotes inserted in red.) (1 Corinthians 16:22) 22 If anyone has no affection for the Lord, let him be accursed.. . .
(Galatians 1:8, 9) . . .However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond the good news we declared to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, I now say again, Whoever is declaring to you as good news something beyond what you accepted, let him be accursed.
But this, as I said, was not a general disdain for those taking the lead. It was a temporary critique of a problem initiated either by James, if he gave them instructions, or by these certain men from James on their own. Still, it was not a simple matter that Peter was  just more comfortable around his own people, and his old habits. Paul says Peter was afraid of these men from James (who were of the circumcised class).
Even of those whom Paul considered to have been made into stumbling blocks to his ministry, he did not blame the persons themselves for that. He counseled the persons who gave too much attention to personalities, personalities such as himself, Apollos or Peter. But he still accepted these "leading men" were ministers through whom the Corinthians had become believers.
(1 Corinthians 1:11, 12) 11 For some from the house of Chloʹe have informed me regarding you, my brothers, that there are dissensions among you. 12 What I mean is this, that each one of you says: “I belong to Paul,” “But I to A·polʹlos,” “But I to Ceʹphas,” “But I to Christ.”
(1 Corinthians 3:3-6) 3 for you are still fleshly. Since there are jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly and are you not walking as men do? 4 For when one says, “I belong to Paul,” but another says, “I to A·polʹlos,” are you not acting like mere men? 5 What, then, is A·polʹlos? Yes, what is Paul? Ministers through whom you became believers, just as the Lord granted each one. 6 I planted, A·polʹlos watered, but God kept making it grow,
(1 Corinthians 3:20-4:3) 20 And again: “Jehovah knows that the reasonings of the wise men are futile.” 21 So let no one boast in men; for all things belong to you, 22 whether Paul or A·polʹlos or Ceʹphas or the world or life or death or things now here or things to come, all things belong to you; 23 in turn you belong to Christ; Christ, in turn, belongs to God. 4 A man should regard us as attendants of Christ and stewards of God’s sacred secrets. 2 In this regard, what is expected of stewards is that they be found faithful. 3 Now to me it is of very little importance to be examined by you or by a human tribunal. . . .
I included all three passages for another reason. It could very well be that it's a product of a "fleshly" mind that might tend to undervalue or even disdain the leadership of those in responsible positions. Some disdain authority for their own iconoclastic reasons or for unknown or illogical reasons. But Paul showed above that it was the "fleshly" mind that gave too much regard to leadership positions. In fact, Paul shows that these leadership positions are unimportant. Those who think that such men are capable of making a human tribunal of some kind of important authority are mistaken. After all, all things already belong to the members of the Christian congregation. It's not a matter of these members reporting to Apollos or Peter or Paul. It's just as appropriate to say that Peter should report to the members of the congregation. Paul is surely saying that there should be no central authority other than Christ who belongs to God.
It seems that Paul's point here is that it is the danger of the fleshly mind to look to specific people in the congregations as some kind of authority. But all of us should be servants to one another instead, he says.

Now't as strange as folk.  As olde Amos Brearly would say.  

Freedom of religion/speech should be a basic human right in every country.
It is a disgrace to force ANY religion upon anyone and to squelch what other people may believe to be their truth.
Good on the German Commissioner for taking a stand! 

Not too many people know about the breakthroughs of the Klingon Language Institute, either, and THEY can spit and yell at the same time!

I've had to scale it down a bit, eliminating the sliding boards, and helicopter pad for the chickens with choppers.
CHICKENS IN CHOPPERS .mp4

I am glad that JWI is here to do the heavy lifting .... I am building a chicken coop and run for 18 chickens, and I am pooped.

Yes. Without some sort of governing arrangement—call it what you will—the Bible becomes a relic with the death of the apostles. Similar to how the constitution becomes a relic in the absence of a Supreme Court.
I swear that there are some who would prefer it that way. That way they can personalize it any way they want. Don’t like this or that? Simply interpret it away—no harm done.

First of all, I should repeat that I have deep respect for the elders who call themselves the "Governing Body" because they have taken the lead in speaking and teaching. They are worthy of "double honor" for their hard work and the heavy responsibility they have taken upon themselves. Granted that this does not excuse them from false teachings and doing nothing about traditional false teachings from the past. Nor does it excuse them for not doing enough to expose the potential gravity and extent of child sexual abuse and child physical abuse. I'm not trying to divert this topic to the specifics of any other issues of doctrines and procedures.
I know you'll disagree, but this is just to explain my own view. It's just that I wanted you to know that I think these particular elders, who call themselves a Governing Body, have put themselves in a unique and valuable position for the overall benefit of congregations worldwide. 
They have years of experience studying, speaking, and teaching on Bible topics. They are in a position to discuss certain difficult doctrinal issues with others who have years of experience studying the Bible. The size of this group of elders focusing on the study of the Bible for teaching purposes is kept manageable for purposes of efficient discussion and decision making (8 or so persons). There is always a ready "crew" of persons who can help handle related issues of logistics or issues of lesser importance. There is always a ready "crew" of persons who can help research issues, handle their incoming and outgoing communications, translation printing, etc. They are in a position to hear questions and concerns about current doctrines and procedures that could potentially come from all over the world.  They have years of experience working with various congregations. They have years of experience traveling to congregations in various places in the world to be aware of various customs and practices that differ from their own. They have a mindset that makes them want to imitate the serious responsibility that the early Christian apostles had when they devote themselves to prayer and teaching. They have the ability to respond to questions and issues very quickly and consistently in a way that the entire world of congregations can benefit from. Of course, this is fraught with all kinds of dangers and potential abuse. Or a small mistake can quickly turn into a large one. Things that are legal and expected in one country might get the congregations in trouble in another country, for example.
There are other things, of course, but these ones are important to me.
Surely you would think that in any church or congregation there might be a need for organization and leadership. Agreeing on meeting times, topics to speak about, topics for Bible study, activities, care for the building, what to do with contributions, and even issues of who might join the church, who might need to be dismissed from the church, who might need counsel or adjustment, who might have special needs the church can take care of, etc., etc.
Most people would have no problem with this on a local church-by-church basis. But here we have tens of thousands of these congregations all around the world, and all of them are happy to teach exactly the same message. A group of elders who are deemed capable of handling this bigger responsibility is, in essence, no different than the local congregations. It's just that some of their functions will necessarily carry even greater responsibility.
This might be true. But it can also just be a logistical problem. Remember how Moses handled the millions in a single "congregation" that began draining his time and energy. He ended up appointing a "hierarchy of command" similar to any large army or large business corporation, so that concerns could be handled more efficiently. Also, on a personal level, while at Bethel I sat at meetings with as many as 5 GB members at the same congregation meeting. While visiting Warwick several months ago, I sat in a meeting with 2 members of the GB and 3 GB "Helpers" (and the wife of a deceased GB member, Sydlik). I could have gone up to any one of them after the meeting to ask questions. In fact, I did. I asked Brother Morris, "How are you?"
Anyway, in my opinion, the Governing Body provides a practical committee of elders handling issues that elders should handle. The difference being that they handle issues that come in from the worldwide congregation. As long as all the persons who listen to them are willing to question and critique the doctrines and processes, as all Christians have a duty to do, then there is nothing wrong with having a "Governing Body." (You might know that we are not the only religion that happens to call such a committee of "church decision-makers" a "Governing Body.") That might not be the best phrase, but it's clear that the congregations generally agree that it's appropriate to have such a group.
I personally don't agree that any such group should make a claim that they are THE faithful and discreet slave prophesied to come into existence at a proper time beginning in 1919. It's indiscreet and unfaithful to the teachings of the scriptures to accept them in that specific capacity. I'm sure they are making a mistake in that regard, but again, this is just my own opinion. It doesn't stop me from accepting and respecting 98.6 percent of what is published by them.

One thing I have said many times before .... with humans, there is truly ...
INFINITE VARIETY
 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to defend the J-GB here at all costs (I will also call them that for simplicity sake). In fact, the example in Galatians and Acts clearly show that anyone can err and succumb to wrong reasoning and hypocrisy, even those who are "highly regarded" which must include present day prominent ones which includes the present day GB. The experience Paul describes is a good reminder that we must always obey God as ruler rather than men, or in fact even angels if they declare a different message, as Paul points out. But, his experience also shows that even though the situation was very difficult (a change from circumcision, to no circumcision required!) it was able to be handled correctly, and resolved by the J-GB, thanks to Paul bringing attention to it. It also shows that these brothers were able to work things out amicably and that even though Paul stayed away from them for 14 years prior to that, it most likely wasn't due to some kind of animosity or disrespect on his part but probably because he was too busy and did not need to consult with them as there was nothing new going on and he was already working in the ministry that he had received directly from Jesus, which the J-GB was in full agreement with.
I realize that my view is similar to what WT teaches, but I reached that conclusion myself the other week. My mum and I were preparing for the midweek meeting, and of course as you probably know it was reading of Galatians 1-3. Previously, I had had a similar understanding as you, and I told my mum that Paul called the J-GB false brothers, but then I started reading the account again, and the cross references to Acts and I had to revise my opinion. It jumped out at me that it was the former sect of the Pharisees that were insisting on circumcision and were the cause of all the trouble in Jerusalem and that Paul was referring to them when he wrote to the Galatians about certain ones distorting the good news about the Christ and being false brothers.
The situation with Peter highlighted that even prominent ones can be guilty of undesirable traits, (and we see this with Peter on more than one occasion)..... and then also Barnabas who had traveled with Paul, was led along with them in their hypocrisy.
I am not sure what you mean by "passively" sending out spies. Surely they were either sent out, or they took the initiative themselves to go spying.

Um...uh....let’s just say it is cutting edge scholarship by “just an ordinary man” who wishes to remain anonymous.

Haven't you finished that yet. Must be a big un. 

Here I am getting the credit for doing "heavy lifting" while you are the one presenting the best possible defense for the usual reading of these incidents through the support in Acts 15.
So, yes, this phrase "although we did not give them any instructions" is the key that defends Peter and James [and John, not mentioned in Acts].
I don't believe it's correct to call the apostles and older men in Jerusalem a "Governing Body" but for simplicity of communication, I'll still abbreviate them as the J-GB. We don't know how many were involved in this J-GB. Perhaps Peter, James and perhaps the entire remaining group of apostles and evidently a couple other elders at this time (unless James, the brother of Jesus, was one of the elders, and we know that Judas-Barsabbas and Silas/Sylvanus were also leading men at Jerusalem). Perhaps all the 12 apostles from Acts 1:26 were still around, with at least the obvious exception of James the son of Zebedee (brother of John, son of Zebedee) --Acts 12:2.
But the reason I called these three (James, Peter, John) Judaizers is not because they were ACTIVE Judaizers, the ones going out themselves and creating the trouble, but because -from Paul's perspective as presented in Galatians- they are guilty of creating the problem. Is it possible that Paul only assumed that the J-GB had given instructions to SUBVERT him, and he learned differently for the first time when they explained it in Acts 15? Or was Paul much more sensitive to the lack of action against these subverters, realizing that the passive act of sending out spies, with active Judaizers included in their group of spies, made them guilty of Judaizing?
Paul thinks of Judaizers as "false brothers" no matter how sincere they were about their faith and Christianity among their own Jewish brothers. Paul says that they were "sent" from James. Acts merely says "they went out from among us." Who is the "us"? Jewish Christians? Jerusalem brothers? "Elders" who were included in the so called J-GB? No matter what, at the very least, James and Peter know that some had gone out from "them" to subvert Paul's ministry and teaching, even if they had not been instructed to subvert it.
I think that Paul included the experience with Peter in Antioch, because it was the perfect indictment of the attitude of the J-GB. They knew that Paul was right, but they cowered at actively supporting his ministry to uncircumcised persons of the nations. Obviously there were other brothers there with Peter who were Jewish Christians, and those Jewish Christians were "false brothers" in that they would not extend a full hand of support and fellowship to the Gentile Christians, separating the brotherhood. (Even though Jesus had said the two folds would become ONE flock. 😉) Peter proved himself a Judaizer by choosing to "side with" the conduct of the Judaizers. Paul said that this was HYPOCRISY (the actual Greek word Paul used was hypocrisy, which is softened in the NWT to "pretense" just as Peter being CONDEMNED is softened to "in the wrong"). Paul said that Peter was thereby COMPELLING people of the nations to live according to this Jewish custom of separation from uncircumcised persons. 
(Galatians 2:11-14) 11 However, when Ceʹphas came to Antioch, I resisted him face-to-face, because he was clearly in the wrong [Greek: CONDEMNED]. 12 For before certain men from James arrived, he used to eat with people of the nations; but when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcised class. 13 The rest of the Jews also joined him in putting on this pretense [Greek: HYPOCRISY], so that even Barʹna·bas was led along with them in their pretense [HYPOCRISY]. 14 But when I saw that they were not walking in step with the truth of the good news, I said to Ceʹphas before them all: “If you, though you are a Jew, live as the nations do and not as Jews do, how can you compel people of the nations to live according to Jewish practice?”
Paul explains his reasons for such language, because Peter, for example, was a transgressor by tearing down things he had himself once built up (recall that Peter was the first to go to the uncircumcised). He was REJECTING the undeserved kindness of God, in effect, rejecting Christ's sacrifice. Paul is therefore speaking of the EVIL influence of the condemnable and hypocritical actions of Peter and the men James had sent:
(Galatians 2:18-3:1) . . .If the very things that I once tore down I build up again, I demonstrate that I am a transgressor. . . . 21 I do not reject the undeserved kindness of God, for if righteousness is through law, Christ actually died for nothing. 3 O senseless Ga·laʹtians! Who has brought you under this evil influence,. . .
Luke, in Acts, is merely putting the overall past picture in its simplest form without including his own judgment about whether Peter and James were absolutely correct in their claim. Luke in Acts also removes most of the controversy. Without Paul (in Galatians) we would not even be aware of some time periods being so many years, when Luke uses expressions like "a few days" "many days after this." For example, Acts does not give the impression that Paul went off to Arabia for 3 years.

I am glad that JWI is here to do the heavy lifting .... I am building a chicken coop and run for 18 chickens, and I am pooped.

My only fear is that one day the blabbermouth will spill the beans about ME>

The Software "FastStone Capture", captures LOOOOOOnnnnggg pages like we have here, and Sunday vertical cartoons, completely automatically.  Just set the cursor to the TOP of where you want to begin, and it automatically scrolls and captures all the way to the complete bottom of the web page.
CTL S  saves it to a new window.
RTN saves it to the hard drive
ALT X  exits that capture, ready for another, and
CTL PrtScn  starts a new capture box for rectangular capture windows, and
CTL ALT Prtscn captures a LONG window all the way to the bottom, automatically scrolling.
You can ALSO capture videos that cannot be downloaded .... like those Nuns who had their homes stolen from them, that they paid for, that I posted earlier.

Ok back from travels, so continued reply to Tom's questions.
When @JW Insider reveals a matter that would otherwise remain confidential, do you rush straight to your keyboard and tell your 900 friends?
No, I mainly upload 'news articles' direct as i find them. But the reason for starting the FB page was to get opinions from others. It hasn't happened much. But I'm not in need of 'limelight' by giving information that others don't have. I just make available on the page things that are general news items. I also advertise this forum in the hope that more people will visit here. 
 Did you make it when the opportunity was ripe? Did your testimony send school and/or government perpetrators  to jail? I hope you had that opportunity and I hope you came to enjoy some sense of justice because of it. 
I contacted Reading Council (using the Data Protection Act) and obtained some personal details of my time in the Home, but much of it was 'detracted', is that the right word, scribbled out anyway with black print. One page was completely blacked out. But I was told I had to use the 'Freedom of Information Act' to obtain details about other people / staff that ran the home at that time. However to gain that info' I had to attend the office, ask for files, find sections that were relevant, and inwardly digest the words, because I would not be allowed to copy, photograph or write notes concerning that information. That would involve a 130 mile trip to Reading, a stay overnight or two, and for what, just  read the info and not record it. 
Then the worse thing happened, the Jimmy Savile scandal started. It was all over the news about how he had abused children etc. It began to involve more 'well known' people and just escalated... So I stopped my investigation into the Children's Home staff etc, as it would have looked as if I was just jumping on the bandwagon. I know I should have done it all many years earlier but I didn't, and I wanted to do as much investigating myself as I could. So I never completed that 'mission'. Since the Jimmy Savile situation the Child Abuse investigations have grown more and more, about different people in different situations, including in religions. 
Do you also make clear that your hair-trigger sensitivity on this issue has nothing to do with Jehovah’s Witnesses?
If ever I talk to people about my past situation I do make it perfectly clear that it did not involve Jehovah's Witnesses. 
However, the link is that whilst I was still in a vulnerable state mentally / emotionally, I joined the JW organisation as it 'seemed' a safe and loving environment. It turns out that at that time, late 60's / early 70's, in some places, the Org was at its worst regarding Child Sexual Abuse. Many of the cases that have come into courts and are still coming into courts around the globe,  seem to centre around that era. 
But having been on here a while now, I have read comments from people that have also known about more recent cases. So although many of those cases are 'old news' it does not mean that it has all stopped. 
Hopefully that answers your questions @TrueTomHarley

If I was you, TTH, I would worry less about Gregg G. Stafford's efforts to turn Jehovah's Witnesses' life, culture, and theology into museum pieces, and more about the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses doing just that.
The efforts of the GB cause millions of people to "come into the Truth", but they also chase millions of people away, after they do.
It's like a person who makes his fortune in New York City, and finds that the City and State do not consider him to be a citizen, as much as they consider him a cash cow.
There is nothing more portable than people with money who are tired of being treated badly by State and local governing bodies, and when they find they have no voice at all to protest this treatment, they realize that they can vote with their feet, and take their wallets with them, leaving the States and Cities to become museum pieces in a slow, tragic death spiral. 
Detroit is a classic example ...one of many.
The same is becoming more and more true about Jehovah's Witnesses, who often, unless they are mindless sycophants,  chafe and tire of the uninspired and erroneous, and heavy handed (in a silk glove) treatment they get in pursuing equity and Justice, and Truth.
So ... they take the Truth they have with them, and their wallets with them, like spilled gold dust disappearing  through cracks in the floor.
They too ... vote with their feet ... and their wallets ... leaving the Organization to be surrounded with sycophants, admiring their Telly Awards, and cartoon evangelizers.
"We have seen the Enemy" .... and He is Us"   -   Pogo
 
( The reason I stay, is I have a very high pain tolerance, and expect nothing from anybody ... and $30 every few months  is all I can afford, and I allocate that to "local needs".)
 

nope, left in 2007
 
In 2007, Greg G. Stafford officially disassociated from the Watchtower Society, the official name of the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
He continues to refer to himself as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and continues to defend the religion’s unique teachings — but also addresses what he considers to be doctrines and practices for which, in his view, there is no biblical support, but which are nevertheless taught by the Watchtower Society.
Such dissent is not possible within the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, which refers to itself as the “faithful and discreet slave’ organization” 

Whenever a new version of Scripture appears that is colloquialized, paraphrased, or just plain dumbed down, the refrain is heard: “If it gets modern people to read God’s Word, it is worth it.” How far you want to take this trend is anyone’s guess. Suffice it to say that the Sinaiticus Sheepngoats pushes the boundaries as they have never been pushed before. It is an incredible find from the dry desert where it has been preserved for thousands of years. (though there are a few critics at the Whitepebble Institute who claim it has only been around two weeks and was discovered in the glove box of Harley’s car)
And yet—and yet—though it takes outrageous liberties and outright manufactures a few things, it does serve to convey the basic idea of the entire Book of Galatians. Is it right to spoil the book for everyone else in the course of getting a good grasp of it yourself? Your guess is as good as mine.
Anyway, here is the text of the Sinaiticus Sheepngoats edition of Galatians:
Chapter 1
Dear Galatians: Hi. Remember me? It’s Paul. How are you? (1:1-5)
The reason I say ‘remember me’ is because I’m not sure that you do! I can’t believe how quickly you are screwing up! Is that chair I used to sit in even cold yet? What is this about louts trying to change the whole narrative? They’re not allowed to do that! Look, even angels are not allowed to do that! (6-9)
You remember what a jerk I was. Nobody made more trouble for you than me. But after God let me hear about it right there on the Damascus road and that other fellow was sent so that I could see again, I went off to Arabia for three years to think about it. (13-17)
Then I came back to Jerusalem and stayed with Peter for a couple of weeks. But no one else—wait, I did see James, but none of the others. Then I went off again. What! You think I am fibbing? For years and years, had you asked those apostles about me, they would have said, “I dunno. Your guess is as good as mine. He used to be the nastiest fellow. Now it looks as though he is on our side. Cool! We’ll take it!” (18-24)
Chapter 2
About 14 years later I figured that maybe I had better give those guys a call. I had Barnabas with me by then, and Titus—fine fellows. I met with them privately, of course, just in case I was not doing something—um, kosher. “You okay with this?” I said to them. “You’re not going to make Titus do that Jewish thing, are you? I don’t see any need for it.” They didn’t either! (2:1-3)
It probably wouldn’t even have come up were it not for those pinheaded louts trying to drag us down, wanting us to everything Jewish that we don’t have to do anymore. We blew right past them, and it was for your sake just as much as for ours. (4-5)
Okay, so I consulted with these ones—I mean, I guess they are important. I wondered if they might try to rein me in, but no!—they said, “Whatever you are doing, keep on doing it. We’ll stick with preaching to Jews, but you—I mean, Peter unlocked that door for the nations, so go for it! Just don’t ignore the poor.” Sure, I can do that. (6-10)
But then Peter came calling later on and suddenly he himself goes all Jewish on me. Oh, sure, he pals around with these new Gentile Christians easy enough, but when his buddies show up, he acts like he doesn’t know them. I said, “I don’t believe it! Here you are living the free life, telling others to be like that, and then the narrow-minded fuddy duddies show up and you get all scaredy cat? (11-14)
Yeah, well he’s a good sort, but he goes a little weak at the knees sometimes. You don’t have to do any of that Jewish stuff! What do you think the Lord is for? (15-21)
Chapter 3
What on earth is wrong with you? How can you be so dumb? You break free but then turn around and go back because you forgot your leg irons? Are you kidding me? (3:1-5)
Don’t pull this Abraham stuff on me. Wait, no. If you want to talk Abraham, let’s talk Abraham. You think he earned anything? No! He “put faith in Jehovah, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” THAT’S what you want to take away from Abraham—his faith, and how he pointed the way for other people to have faith. Not the later Law—that Law did nothing but show you up for the basket cases that you were! Did you manage to keep it? No! All you did was screw up. That’s why when Christ comes along, you are supposed to say, “Exactly what we need! Thank you, thank you, thank you. (6-11)
You don’t go back to the Law again—what’s wrong with you? The Law has nothing to do with faith. Christ pulled us out of that—THAT’S what Abraham was pointing to, and you want to dive back in again? (12-14)
Okay, now look—let’s take this real slow. Take notes if it will help. So Abraham gets a promise that means the Christ will come through his lineup, but how does the Law figure in? It comes 430 years later. Does it change his promise? I don’t think so. (15-18)
Why the Law? It’s because you guys kept messing up, that’s why. And it was supposed to dawn on you that you DID keep messing up and that you’re never (and yes—me, too) going to come out like the champion of Jeopardy. You weren’t supposed to think that dotting all the ‘I’s and crossing all the ‘T’s would get you there—besides, you missed lots of them. (19-22)
Yes, it gave you something to do and kept you off the streets. But now that the real thing has arrived, you can set down your slates. Class is over. You can join in with that promise to Abraham. (23-29)
Chapter 4
It took a long time for you to get to where you are. A lot of work went into it. Don’t mess it up. (4:1-8)
You had real freedom. I mean, real freedom in Christ. And now you want to become law nerds again and focus on dotting ‘I’s and crossing ‘T’s? Really? What! Do I have a death wish or something? What am I doing this for? (9-11)
Remember the good times we used to have? Remember how you used to loan me your specs? You didn’t then stick out your foot to trip me up. What’s gotten into you? (12-16)
Do you think that these pinheaded louts are your friends? They just want to be your bosses. “Meet the new boss—same as the old boss.” (17-20)
Go back to Abraham, you law nerds, and take a point. Two women, remember? One a concubine, one a wife. Hagar gave birth first because Sarah thought she was too old to have a child. No mystery about how Hagar conceived. You see it all the time on TV. But Sarah! THAT’S where God’s promise came in, and she didn’t even believe herself it could happen until it did! 
The two women stand for two groups of people. Hagar, the one of ordinary birth, is mother to the ones of Law (that you want go back to!) Sarah, the one of the promise, is mother to the ones putting their faith in Christ. (21-28)
The Hagar kid made trouble for the Sarah kid back then. It’s the same today with these pinheaded louts trying to force their Law on you. But what does the verse say? “Take this Law and shove it! I ain’t workin here no more!” Keep it that way! (29-31)
Chapter 5
You are free from slavery. Don’t go back to it. Or if you do, you’d better not miss a single one of those ‘I’s or ‘T’s. (5:1-6)
You were doing so well. Who tripped you up? Who made you think you need circumcision? It ain’t me, babe. Those Jews would give me a free pass if they thought I was turning Christianity into just one of their outposts. “Just you wait, enry iggins”—they’ll get theirs. (7-11)
In fact, I have half a mind to come and kick them in the nuts so hard that they won’t qualify to serve in the temple that they want to drag you into! (12)
No, brothers, don’t go there. Just don’t. You don’t need their picayune Law. It all boils down to love anyway—that is the greatest part of it—so if you get you head around that, you’ll do just fine. You start nitpicking at each other over every pissy little thing and you’ll tear each other apart! (13-18)
Don’t do bad things. Do good things. What do you mean, ‘What bad things?’ “No back-biting, no ass-grabbing, you know exactly what I mean!” [thank you, Randy Neuman] It shouldn’t be hard, if you really are following the Christ. Do the best you can, and don’t go thinking that you are better than the other guy. (19-26)
Chapter 6
Okay, let’s wrap this up. Don’t be babies—man up, but pull each other out of the crud when you have to (be sure you don’t fall in yourself). (6:1-5)
Don’t try to Play around with God. You can’t. Keep on keeping on—it will all pay off. Lend a hand where needed. (6-10)
See the large letters I make, all by myself with my own hand? Why? Because I am blind as a bat—that’s why. I dunno—it comes and goes. That’s why I insulted that pompous character before I knew he was the high priest. I asked God to take it away, but he said, “Nah, it keeps you humble.” And it has. It’s not an altogether bad thing to have a thorn in the flesh. (11)
Now, remember—they are pinheaded louts trying to lay their Law on you. And why? They’re just chicken themselves—like Peter might have been, but he saw where he was heading and corrected himself. They don’t want to stand out among their cronies, and they want to find strength in numbers by having you do what they do—it will hide their cowardice. What! You think they do the Law themselves? No way! They just want to do some back-stabbing and ass-grabbing themselves and then throw in a gerbil or something for sacrifice to make it all good again. Come on! Please—you are too smart not to see through them. (12-16)
I’ve suffered for carrying the good news of the Christ. So have you. Don’t turn back to be a law nerd again. Press on ahead. God will back you. So will Christ. (17-18)
***
What a bunch of idiots there at the Whitepebble Institute—tossing this amazing new manuscript in the dumpster! The place has gone right downhill ever since the director, Wayne Whitepebble, took a course on critical thinking and tried to kiss up to the evolutionists by adding an ancient skull to his library alongside the globe and old maps because he heard that is what smart people do but then it turned out that his ancient skull was actually missing evidence in the Mugsy McDougal ax murder case and he got into serious hot water with the authorities.
Plainly, this new find belongs in the Bible canon.

 
 

If I was you, TTH, I would worry less about Gregg G. Stafford's efforts to turn Jehovah's Witnesses' life, culture, and theology into museum pieces, and more about the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses doing just that.
The efforts of the GB cause millions of people to "come into the Truth", but they also chase millions of people away, after they do.
It's like a person who makes his fortune in New York City, and finds that the City and State do not consider him to be a citizen, as much as they consider him a cash cow.
There is nothing more portable than people with money who are tired of being treated badly by State and local governing bodies, and when they find they have no voice at all to protest this treatment, they realize that they can vote with their feet, and take their wallets with them, leaving the States and Cities to become museum pieces in a slow, tragic death spiral. 
Detroit is a classic example ...one of many.
The same is becoming more and more true about Jehovah's Witnesses, who often, unless they are mindless sycophants,  chafe and tire of the uninspired and erroneous, and heavy handed (in a silk glove) treatment they get in pursuing equity and Justice, and Truth.
So ... they take the Truth they have with them, and their wallets with them, like spilled gold dust disappearing  through cracks in the floor.
They too ... vote with their feet ... and their wallets ... leaving the Organization to be surrounded with sycophants, admiring their Telly Awards, and cartoon evangelizers.
"We have seen the Enemy" .... and He is Us"   -   Pogo
 
( The reason I stay, is I have a very high pain tolerance, and expect nothing from anybody ... and $30 every few months  is all I can afford, and I allocate that to "local needs".)
 

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.

Paul specifically mentions Peter as coming to Antioch and being clearly in the wrong when Peter "feared those of the circumcised class." But look who sent those men of the circumcised class:
(Galatians 2:11, 12) . . .However, when Ceʹphas came to Antioch, I resisted him face-to-face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12 For before certain men from James arrived, he used to eat with people of the nations; but when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcised class.
It was specifically because these men had such a "superfine" reputation as the leaders in Jerusalem that Paul went to the trouble of saying that "even if it were an angel from heaven declaring a different good news" they should CURSE that angel.
(Galatians 1:7-9) . . .Not that there is another good news; but there are certain ones who are causing you trouble and wanting to distort the good news about the Christ. 8 However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond the good news we declared to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, I now say again, Whoever is declaring to you as good news something beyond what you accepted, let him be accursed.
The focus was on "whoever" even if that "whoever" turned out to be "we" -- the persons the Galatians would have trusted, even an APOSTLE like Paul himself --  or even an ANGEL. Well what was considered the closest thing to an ANGEL for the congregations in that day? 
I think we know that the most likely persons were the apostles at Jerusalem who were actively trying to Judaize or the apostles who knew better but allowed their own peers at Jerusalem to influence them to Judaize. Why else would Paul immediately try to distance himself from these very apostles? Why would he immediately follow this up by showing how he distanced himself from any supposed authority or teachings coming out of Jerusalem?
(Galatians 1:10-2:7) . . .Is it, in fact, men I am now trying to persuade or God? Or am I trying to please men? . . . the good news I declared to you is not of human origin; 12 for neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it was through a revelation by Jesus Christ. . . . 15 But when God . . . thought good 16 to reveal his Son through me so that I might declare the good news about him to the nations, I did not immediately consult with any human; 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before I was, but I went to Arabia, and then I returned to Damascus. 18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to visit Ceʹphas, and I stayed with him for 15 days. 19 But I did not see any of the other apostles, only James the brother of the Lord. 20 Now regarding the things I am writing you, I assure you before God that I am not lying. . . . 22 But I was personally unknown to the congregations of Ju·deʹa. . . . 2 Then after 14 years I again went up to Jerusalem with Barʹna·bas, also taking Titus along with me. . . . 3 Nevertheless, not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, although he was a Greek. 4 But that matter came up because of the false brothers brought in quietly, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we enjoy in union with Christ Jesus, so that they might completely enslave us; 5 we did not yield in submission to them, no, not for a moment, so that the truth of the good news might continue with you. 6 But regarding those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me, for God does not go by a man’s outward appearance—those highly regarded men imparted nothing new to me. 7 On the contrary,. . .
Why do we think that Paul tries to show that he never had much interaction at all with Jerusalem, and the "supposed" pillars there? Why is it important that he say he did NOT go up to Jerusalem "to those were apostles" but ran off to Arabia instead? Even after three years he only just spent two weeks in Jerusalem staying with Peter, and he happened to see James while he was there -- but NONE of the other apostles?
What is the main point here that he wants the Galatians to be sure they remember he is not lying about? It can only be that he must do his best to smash this myth that Jerusalem is the seat of some kind of authority they should accept. These Galatians are complying with Judaizers, the same problem in Antioch, because they thought that Jerusalem had authority to impose such doctrines on them. So Paul makes it clear that even when he was right there in Jerusalem, that they were not compelled to follow the Judaizers, and the "false brothers" in Jerusalem who wanted to enslave them back into aspects of Jewish law, the most obtrusive of which was "circumcision" - which Paul also utilized as a key expression to summarize the entire egregious idea of being put under law. 
You can see that here when circumcision is expanded to mean any kind of placement under law:
(Galatians 4:1-11) . . .9 But now that you have come to know God or, rather, have come to be known by God, how is it that you are turning back again to the weak and beggarly elementary things and want to slave for them over again? 10 You are scrupulously observing days and months and seasons and years. 11 I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you.
But it also included putting themselves under stewards and supervisors. Now that they were no longer under law, they should understand that they are all sons and heirs, and have no reason to go back under human stewards and supervisors. This might refer back to Paul's comments about the supposed "pillars" at Jerusalem, whose authority he didn't accept.
(Galatians 4:1-11) . . .Now I say that as long as the heir is a young child, he is no different from a slave, although he is the lord of all things, 2 but he is under supervisors and stewards until the day set ahead of time by his father. 3 Likewise, we too, when we were children, were enslaved by the elementary things of the world. 4 But when the full limit of the time arrived, God sent his Son, who was born of a woman and who was under law, 5 that he might release by purchase those under law, so that we might receive the adoption as sons. 6 Now because you are sons, God has sent the spirit of his Son into our hearts, and it cries out: “Abba, Father!” 7 So you are no longer a slave but a son; and if a son, then you are also an heir through God. 8 Nevertheless, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those who are not really gods. 9 But now that you have come to know God or, rather, have come to be known by God, how is it that you are turning back again to the weak and beggarly elementary things and want to slave for them over again?
I think we can take from this that even where the supposed pillars and supervisors (governing bodies) and stewards are faithful and give us good instruction and a good example to follow, that we never should accept that "authority" is coming from them. It should never be the Governing Body we think of them as persons to "obey." Except in the sense of following good examples that their experience has proven to be worthwhile to imitate. Just as we do should do for any elders taking the lead.
(Hebrews 13:7-17) 7 Remember those who are taking the lead among you, who have spoken the word of God to you, and as you contemplate how their conduct turns out, imitate their faith. 8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, and forever. 9 Do not be led astray by various and strange teachings, for it is better for the heart to be strengthened by undeserved kindness than by foods, which do not benefit those occupied with them. . . . 16 Moreover, do not forget to do good and to share what you have with others, for God is well-pleased with such sacrifices. 17 Be obedient to those who are taking the lead among you and be submissive, for they are keeping watch over you as those who will render an account, so that they may do this with joy and not with sighing, for this would be damaging to you.
Those who think their changing teachings are "food" forget that Jesus is the same, unchanging, and it is undeserved kindness that is much more important than various and strange teachings. Therefore, the ones taking the lead that we are obedient to, are not ones where we feel we must be obedient to any specific teachings. We are obedient to their concerns and counsel about our CONDUCT to the extent that we respect how their own conduct and faith has turned out. This probably sounds like heresy to those who can't get over the idea that we need to be OBEDIENT to the teachings of the Governing Body, or even OBEDIENT the teachings of faithful stewards. We are actually obedient to the counsel of those who are concerned about our Christian conduct, and if we can see that this counsel conforms to their own good example. The real spiritual "food," where we should get our motivation and energy, is our response to Christ's "undeserved kindness." Our "will" should be to Jehovah's will, and find good leading examples that can help us do his will. That should be the motive. God has given us the greatest example of doing good for us, so we wish to also "do good and share what we have with others." These are the good works and conduct that should also be the "meat" of our meetings:
(Hebrews 10:24, 25) 24 And let us consider one another so as to incite to love and fine works, 25 not forsaking our meeting together, as some have the custom, but encouraging one another, . . .
Considering (remembering/comtemplating) one another so as to incite (lead/motivate) to love and fine works. This is the reason for meeting together and encouraging one another.

It’s a smokin hot day for the old hen today!