James Thomas Rook Jr.

I agree with you, Anna, but what is REALLY being discussed now is CREDIBILITY.    
Those that put themselves in the position as God's spokesmen ... delivering "food at the proper time" have a responsibility to deliver good wholesome food at the proper time.
Uncontaminated wholesome food.
Not rocks painted to look like real food.
I have told the story before about years ago when I lived near Lake Jackson Texas, and I saw a Mexican family, obviously starving ... eating grass on the side of the road. I stopped and entreated them to come to my home, and they piled into the back of the pickup truck and drove about 20 miles. When we got to my home, I opened the chain link fence gate, and showed them my luxuriant green lawn, that needed mowing.
That story is not credible ... but I hope it makes the point about good, wholesome food at the proper time.
Had it been a true story, the people I supposedly rescued would have been exploited, and betrayed .... not saved ..... and the "food at the proper time" would have served MY agenda ... only!
 

Ever use binoculars, and look up into the night sky, and see all the craters on the Moon?
That was me!

Remember an old comic strip that used to be in the Sunday Newspapers?
RIPLEY'S  -  BELIEVE IT OR ELSE!
Some people are so afraid of dying that the fear causes them to see red skies filled with flying elephants ... because they have been taught to have absolute faith in their "teachers" .... they truly believe it ... they really do see red skies and elephants, where there are none
This is what supplies an extraordinary good income for Shamans, Priests, Witch Doctors, and the presumably "Good Guys" who also use this same model.
Free money is GOOD!
Being broke is BAD!
 
...at least throwing virgins into volcanoes is currently out of favor.
.... and waste of those few that are left.
 
 
 

I think it has already backfired.
In my considered opinion EVERYTHING they say ... that I cannot independently prove .. is completely and always suspect, with the baseline assumption that it is just another silly delusion to cover up past delusions that have become so painfully obvious, that it is affecting donations.
.... merely a contemporary way of saying that we should be like Bereans and CHECK everything ..... which as an organization,  and as publishers and students,  we have NOT been doing .... for a VERY long time.
ANY organization sitting in a pool of "free money", under a waterfall of "free money" will do ANYTHING to keep the free money coming.
... even make up bald faced lies from thin air, and believe it themselves.
That's why Watchtower Lawyers do NOT "fight" for justice .... they fight for their client to WIN.
In that respect we are not even unusual ... just being what all human beings naturally are.
Their credibility as to be worthy of intrinsic trust .... is ZERO.
They need no help from "apostates" to self-mutilate their own credibility.  They are their very own worst enemy. Others' efforts are  only supportive ... NOT the cause.
... and I think the "Overlapping Generations" weaseling  is the straw that broke the camel's back.
 

One day while out in Service with probably the smartest, most well educated Brother and Elder I have ever met .... he was driving, I was shotgun, and there were two in the back seat ... I mentioned to him that even though I had tried to understand it, I just could not understand the "Overlapping Generations" explanation ... and I asked him if he understood it, and could explain it to me..
He got real quiet, thought for about 15 seconds and said "I think they are trying to do the best they can ...."
I have talked to several Elders, asking about that, and NONE could give me an explanation, and did not even want to talk about it ... and I did not push it any further.
It makes no sense whatsoever .... it's almost like a test, to see if they can say the sky is bright red, filled with flying elephants, and see if everybody will believe it.
AND BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE IT, THEY ALSO WILL SEE IT!
I realize they are grasping at straws, trying to defend the totally indefensible .... that they were 100% wrong for over a hundred years ... but do they so transparently have to publicly play all of us for complete delusional fools?
 
 

Ever use binoculars, and look up into the night sky, and see all the craters on the Moon?
That was me!

There is a lot we don't agree with, JWI.  And this is one of them.  Although I would prefer your spiritual eyes to be more keen than they are, you are certainly wiser, and more experienced than those on the GB.  It doesn't take wisdom to make up delusional doctrine.  It's like learning to ride a bike, it becomes second nature after awhile . 2 Tim 4:3,4   However, it takes spiritual wisdom, to recognize the delusion.  1 John 4:1

that's a wolf in sheep's covering if ever there was one!

You were not ever the feature, were you?
Why aren’t you off blowing off firecrackers today? Did you run out?

Ever use binoculars, and look up into the night sky, and see all the craters on the Moon?
That was me!

If you're referring to "Witness" then I don't think she is pretending to cover anything up. If you stay in this forum long enough, you will soon find out who is who.

Yes. I do think that all of the anointed, each and every member of the entire Christian "congregation" or "body of Christ" have the capability to fulfill the role of faithful and discreet slave, during their life. The same actually holds true, by practical extension, to all members of the congregation.
This doesn't mean that everyone needs to have a say in doctrine, teaching, or instruction, shepherding, or that everyone needs to preside, or give feedback to the GB. It just means that every Christian has been given something  (gifts and talents, energy or ability to: work, console, encourage, help widows, comfort, preach, sing, prepare physical food, prepare a talk, raise children, help orphans, help someone sick, contribute money, help someone in need, carry water, drive an invalid to the meetings, etc.)
The principle is in Ephesians 4:12, Romans 14:19, etc., especially verses where the Greek word " οἰκοδομή oikodomḗ " is used. It means to build up, with the implication of building up a household, edification. It's related to the idea of the "faithful house servant managing the domestics" or "faithful steward" ( οἰκονόμος oikonómos; a house-distributor) who serve one another to keep a household running smoothly in Matthew 24:45, Luke 12:42, etc.
Metaphorically, food builds up, strengthens, maintains, gives energy, contributes to health, etc. In many of the following verses (and many others) the idea of "building up" uses this word also meaning "to edify" or, in effect, to feed. Each Christian is involved in soberly "feeding" on another. (Hebrews 10:24,25)

Ephesians 4:12
to equip the saints for works of ministry, to build up the body of Christ,

Romans 14:19
So then, let us pursue what leads to peace and to mutual edification.

Romans 15:2
Each of us should please his neighbor for his good, to build him up.

1 Corinthians 12:7
Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good.

1 Corinthians 12:27
Now you are the body of Christ, and each of you is a member of it.

2 Corinthians 13:9
In fact, we rejoice when we are weak but you are strong, and our prayer is for your perfection.

2 Corinthians 13:11
Finally, brothers, rejoice! Aim for perfect harmony, encourage one another, be of one mind, live in peace. And the God of love and peace will be with you.

2 Timothy 4:5
But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.
And yes, I know that some would say that this applies initially and perhaps especially to the office of persons in leadership positions like Peter (representing apostles) who was told by Jesus, to "Feed my lambs/sheep." (John 21:17)  But this special shepherding work, as Peter points out is something that all elders should share in. Peter even uses some of the same language that Jesus used in the illustration of the faithful and unfaithful stewards:
(1 Peter 5:1-4) . . .Therefore, as a fellow elder, . . .  I make this appeal to the elders among you: 2 Shepherd the flock of God under your care, serving as overseers, not under compulsion, but willingly before God; not for love of dishonest gain, but eagerly; 3 not lording it over those who are God’s inheritance, but becoming examples to the flock. 4 And when the chief shepherd has been made manifest, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.
 

There was absolutely no intent at being clever or sly on my part. But you really show your paranoia though. Attributing intent where there was none.

I can understand what Russell was saying. In his mind, he was probably thinking that he made the Bible more readable and understandable. And that as a result it would stick better in people’s minds. I feel his motive was genuine. But that does not mean that his statements were not presumptuous and dangerous. The danger is that as a result many will fixate themselves on every utterance of this “prophet” at the cost of actually checking the Bible itself. Not only that, but gradually people will take what this “prophet” says as gospel truth, no matter what it is, without checking or without a wait and see attitude. And this situation we find ourselves in today. I posted an example of the resulting hysteria above.

Whazzamatter TTH?
Doctor would not refill your anti-anxiety meds?

Of course. I brought this topic up because of prayer for understanding and due diligence and meditation. It is not be cute, but it is our very serious Christian obligation to question, to prove to ourselves, to make sure,  to test, and to search. Otherwise we are not following Jehovah's counsel in the Bible. In my case, I also always first give the benefit of the doubt to brothers who are older, wiser, and more experienced such as the men on the Governing Body. It is only when Jehovah's word seems to give a different answer that I would bring it up for further discussion like this. If you actually know of a scripture that tells us it is OK to just wait, I'm interested.

That was to you, in a Vette, 50 years ago. I can hardly imagine you shoehorned into an Aston Martin today.

I think you should drop this suspicion as extremely unlikely. Your prior guess makes much more sense. In fact, it is almost the only sensible thing you have ever said.
A lawyer that is permitted anywhere near a case must know how to make himself likable. It will not do to tell the judge, jury, or witness, that the reason they don’t understand something is that they are ignorant.
Probably you read about Lee Iacocca. Although he was one who launched the Mustang, Henry Ford later fired him with the remark: “Sometimes you just don’t like people.”
We are far far far more emotional that is generally acknowledged. It is nearly to the point of ‘reason need not be taken into account.’

The seventh will be the ticket. You know how it works with seven. Rework your scenario to put us on the seventh right now—for example, expand one into an A and a B part—and you are golden.

Oh, come on. Let me drag in my arch-porkchop again. 
I think of that overdone drama of a few decades back of Zena, who resisted every word of counsel from Moses and everyone responded with such bland remarks as ‘Oh Zena, Zena,’ while shaking their heads in dismay and disappointment at her bad attitude. Were it a video version, she would be making that ubiquitous Witness hand-wave, seen in all dramas, that means ‘Get out of my face!’
Of course, she goes down with the scoundrels when Jehovah opens up the earth, to cries of ‘Zeeeena! Zeeeena! Oh....Zeeeena, no no no.
It will be like that in modern times. The call will come to ‘go but for moment into the interior rooms until my denunciation passes over.’ Everyone will rush in their to take cover, but JTR will bellow, “What for? I’m not going anywhere! It’s stuffy in there! I quit the best job I ever had in 1975! No more! Who do they think they are?!” and I will be crying to the last ‘Jaaaames! Jaaaaames! Oh......Jaaaaaaames, no no no (you old pork chop)’

This is not a reply to anyone specifically, just some musings in response to some of the comments here.
I suppose it's not too much of an unreasonable concept to have a measure of confidence in imperfect humans, who all err and make mistakes. Without confidence in others, it would be a crazy world, even crazier than it is now and absolutely nothing would get done. Even when we have been disappointed over and over, we still check what the weatherman has to say about tomorrow's weather. I think maybe the word "complete" confidence should be omitted though when referring to any human, including the GB. Surely complete trust/confidence only belongs to God. The GB cannot ensure our salvation, only God can. (Do not put your trust in princes nor in a son of man, who cannot bring salvation Ps 146:3) We cannot question God, and quite rightly so of course. But we should be able to question a human, a prophet, or an angel for that matter. The story about the “man of the true God” in 1 Kings ch.13 highlights the seriousness of questioning (making sure) very well.  In Israelite times people needed to distinguish between a true prophet and a false one. There were plenty of false ones, and they were exposed by Jehovah. Today, we need to question in order to determine who is false and who is not.  (The term prophet that I am referring to is a spokesperson for God, not someone who predicts).  The Insight book says this in part regarding true and false prophets:  “The true prophet would speak in Jehovah’s name; the things foretold would come to pass (De 18:20-22); and his prophesying must promote true worship, being in harmony with God’s revealed word and commandments (De 13:1-4). The last requirement was probably the most vital and decisive, for an individual might hypocritically use God’s name, and by coincidence, his prediction might see fulfillment. But the true prophet was not solely or even primarily a prognosticator, as has been shown. Rather, he was an advocate of righteousness, and his message dealt primarily with moral standards and their application. He expressed God’s mind on matters. (Isa 1:10-20; Mic 6:1-12) Hence, it was not necessary to wait perhaps for years or generations to determine whether the prophet was true or false by fulfillment of a prediction. If his message contradicted God’s revealed will and standards, he was false".

So, we come to the crux of the matter. We should be able to question the prophet/spokesperson/GB, to make sure  that what he says does not conflict with "Jehovah’s righteous standards and mind on matters" as was verified by Geoffrey Jackson in his "if we gave wrong direction, then everyone who has the Bible would see that it was the wrong direction"  statement.
So unquestioning obedience and "complete" trust, in my opinion, are not the right choice of words to use in connection with the GB.
 
And this is the primary reason for the topic, not to suspiciously distrust the GB, but to remind ourselves, by discussing the topic in depth, that there are boundaries and stipulations that have to be met before we can have confidence in, and/or obey any single expression made by the prophet/GB/FDS. And these boundaries and stipulations are set by Jehovah himself.
Personally, I find nothing wrong with speculation, as long as it is not presented as fact.

Going beyond what is written. This happens when an interpretation is applied to any seemingly ambiguous scripture. Where to find the balance? Since no one can interpret scripture without the possibility of making an error, how about only sticking to what is completely clear, (besides not conflicting with other scriptures), and admitting anything else is speculation.  That would be a good start. I have no qualms telling anyone who wants to know my opinion on the revised understanding of the “generation”,  that I believe it is speculative, and may or may not be true,  and that we will know the true answer probably not until after Armageddon......
In saying all this, I do not think that the reasons for distrusting the GB that have been posted here by some are valid enough reasons. I think completely distrusting the GB is as unreasonable as completely trusting them.
 

The "God's Kingdom Rules" book. From the chart on page 12. Of course, the actual chart only shows the following portion:

I added the 33 C.E. to 70 C.E. portion to begin a discussion on the topic.

For whatever it’s worth, here’s an interesting item of history that I read from Professor Allitt: Americans so readily bought in the stories about the ghoulish & inhuman doings of ‘the Huns’ in WWI, which later proved to be false, that when stories emerged about atrocities toward the Jews in WWII, some said, “We’re not falling for that again!” and thus they were “wrong twice.”
 

I guess you mean that as Witnesses, we bought into the wrong definition of generation, once, then twice, then three times, then four times, then five times, so that this sixth version might actually be right, but we don't want to fall for it like we did the last five times?