James Thomas Rook Jr.

So, if Timothy or Eutychus were alive in 33CE, which is very possible, then he could have been part of "this generation." Paul could very well have been the same age as Jesus had been, and Timothy could very well have been 15 to 20 years younger than Paul, maybe more. It's only reasonable that Jesus meant persons who were alive at the time could have been addressed as "THIS generation." One might argue that if Timothy had been born in 40CE, that perhaps he had a brother or sister who had been born in 33CE, which COULD stretch him back into that generation that Jesus addressed. But then Jesus' words become less meaningful, because his point was that many people alive right then would live to see it. And if all those people died off and ONLY people who weren't alive yet lived to see it, then Jesus would have been seen as a false prophet.

33CE            70CE   [ Great-Grand Parents ]                                   [  Grand-Parents        ]                          [     Parents         ]                             [   "This Generation"  ]                                  [        Children     ]                                        [     Grand-Children   ]                                                [ Great-Grand-Children ] In 33 CE, it's easy to assume that Jesus addressed people from 15 to 55, with younger exceptions and older exceptions. But it seems likely that only persons in a 30-to-40-year range of ages could reasonably identify themselves with the generation he was addressing. More specifically we know that Jesus was primarily addressing his own apostles, assumed to be men of his own age group, as if his own "brothers" in the same generation.
We know from the context of Exodus 1:6 that the term generation was often used in a sense similar to the chart above, where a person along with his brothers (and sisters) constituted a typical generation. (The LXX translates the Hebrew word in Exodus 1:6 the same as Matthew's Greek term for generation.)
(Exodus 1:1-6) . . .Now these are the names of Israel’s [Jacob's] sons who came into Egypt with Jacob, each man who came with his household: 2 Reuʹben, Simʹe·on, Leʹvi, and Judah; 3 Isʹsa·char, Zebʹu·lun, and Benjamin; 4 Dan and Naphʹta·li; Gad and Ashʹer. 5 And all those who were born to Jacob were 70 people, but Joseph was already in Egypt. 6 Joseph eventually died, and also all his brothers and all that generation. In fact, we know that this is exactly how generation had just been used just a few verses earlier in the final verses of Genesis.
23 Joseph saw the third generation of Eʹphra·im’s sons, also the sons of Maʹchir, Ma·nasʹseh’s son. They were born upon Joseph’s knees. 24 At length Joseph said to his brothers: “I am dying, but God will without fail turn his attention to you, and he will certainly bring you up out of this land to the land about which he swore to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.” 25 So Joseph made the sons of Israel swear, saying: “God will without fail turn his attention to you. You must take my bones up out of here.” 26 And Joseph died at the age of 110, and they had him embalmed, and he was put in a coffin in Egypt. So, "that generation" in Exodus 1:6 refers to the generation of Joseph's brothers. It does not include his father Jacob's generation, nor his own sons Ephraim and Manasseh, nor their sons or grandsons (the third generation). I notice that Brother Splane (who refers to Exodus 1:6) would never refer to these verses that lead up to it. But even on its own, Exodus 1 already makes clear that this is one generation of brothers, and that you don't include someone's children and grandchildren and great grandchildren in that same generation.
If a typical lifespan in Jesus' day was 60 years, then just like now, people would sometimes live long enough to see, not just their grandchildren, but also their great-grandchildren. Joseph lived to be nearly twice that age, and would therefore potentially see a third or even fourth generation. But the fourth generation is not the same as the first generation.
It's also the way Matthew uses the term generation:
(Matthew 1:17) 17 All the generations, then, from Abraham until David were 14 generations; from David until the deportation to Babylon, 14 generations; from the deportation to Babylon until the Christ, 14 generations.
And it's the way we today use the term generation:
*** w98 9/1 p. 28 I Learned to Rely on Jehovah ***
My health is no longer very good, so the brothers drive me to the Kingdom Hall. I find pleasure in being there and enjoy giving comments at the Watchtower Study. I am especially happy to see representatives of three generations of my family serving Jehovah, including several of the grandchildren.

WOW!
 
 
 
.... now what?
 
Finding Nemo - Now what_!.mp4

If Russell didn't want to be seen as the "faithful and wise servant" then why admit that he was the "faithful and wise servant" privately? Why didn't he say something to stop thousands of other people from saying it? Why would he publish letters in his Watch Tower magazine that addressed him as "That Servant"? Why would he allow himself to be addressed this way year after year in the Watch Tower's Bible Student Conventions and addressed this way in the Convention Souvenir Notes, without saying something?
Only about 30 days after he died, the Watchtower claimed that THOUSANDS of people saw him as 'That Servant, Faithful and Wise.' You'd think that Russell would have said something if he didn't want all these thousands of people saying this during his lifetime.
And do you think he thought that no one would see "That Servant" as Russell himself, when he wrote an article indicating that "modesty" was what had kept him from interpreting "that servant" as a singular individual, but that he would be saying the Holy Spirit was in error if he kept saying that it was the entire (plural) household of faith. In 1896 (page R1946), while not making the application directly yet, Russell presented the following article:
"THAT SERVANT."
—MARCH 22.—Luke 12:37-48; Matt. 24:42-51.—
THIS lesson, from Matthew's account (Matt. 24:42-51), was treated in our issue of April 1, '95. We have no further comment to make except upon one point: "that [special] servant." In our examination of this text we seem to have treated the term "that servant" as though the Spirit had erred in saying "that servant" when it meant servants (plural), and we applied it to all true servants of God. Since then we have been met from various quarters with objections to so general an application, and the suggestion that it would be wrong to allow modesty or any other consideration, good or bad, to warp our judgment in the exposition of the inspired Word; to which proposition we agree. God evidently has some purpose in all that he has caused to be written for our admonition; and faithfulness as servants requires that we deliver to the household the Lord's word, as he gives it.
Being unable to answer the objections and arguments raised, we candidly present them to the "fellow-servants" and to the "household" of faith as part of the Lord's message: the subject being forced upon us by its recurrence in the International S.S. Lessons, as well as by inquiries by letter. Let each "fellow servant" and each member of the "household of faith" use his consecrated judgment in accepting or rejecting this exposition, or any other exposition we may ever offer, according to his ability or inability to recognize in it the voice of our great Shepherd.
The objection urged is that the Lord's words clearly mention and distinguish between his "household" (his faithful people in general), the "fellow servants" (plural), and "that servant" specially indicated as the Lord's agent in dispensing present truth as food to his "fellow servants" and the "household." It is admitted that in many Scriptures the consecrated are addressed individually when all of a class are meant,—as, for instance, "To him that overcometh I will grant to sit with me in my throne." This, according to the rules of language, means—"To each one who overcomes," etc. And in the texts under consideration, it is held that if neither the "household" nor "fellow servants" were mentioned, it might be questionable whether the expression "that servant" referred to one or to all faithful servants; but that when "that servant" and "his fellow servants" and the "household" are all mentioned in one connection, and in contrast, it would be a perversion of the rules of language and interpretation to mix and confound that which the holy spirit has so emphatically marked as distinct. It is further urged that to apply the term "his household" to nominal Christian professors in general could not be correct, because the "meat in due season" is intended only for the Lord's truth-hungry, "watching" people; and hence among these must be sought the "household" to be fed, the "servants" (plural) to do the feeding, and "that servant" at whose hands our present Lord will dispense the food to "his fellow servants" for "the household;" and who thus is constituted a general steward, overseer and dispenser of the Lord's "goods."
It is urged, further, that the manifest fulfilment of this, during this "harvest" and time of the Lord's presence, should assist in the correct understanding of the promise; and that when we see things come to pass we should be able to recognize them whether we discerned their meaning in advance or not. Indeed, the demonstration seems to have forced the true interpretation, rather than that an interpretation led to the fulfilment;—which makes the matter really the stronger, now that it is seen. . . .
We submit the argument without comment.
For someone who submitted the argument "without comment" and "with no further comment," he sure went to a lot of trouble to show why he agreed with it, and why it was the undeniable and correct argument.
Whose modesty do you think he was talking about when he said he would only present the argument, but couldn't himself comment on it? The answer, of course, appeared in that December 1, 1916 Watch Tower, that came out just about 30 days after Russell died.
Thousands of the readers of Pastor Russell's writings believed that he filled the office of "that faithful and wise servant," . . . . His modesty and humility precluded him from openly claiming this title, but he admitted as much in private conversation. (R 5998)
And of course, Rutherford immediately made more statements to that effect all through 1917. For example:
"All of us realize . . . our dear Brother Russell . . . as 'that servant'." (January 15, 1917, R 6035)
". . . the Lord send through his chosen servant. THE WATCH TOWER unhesitatingly proclaims Brother Russell as 'that faithful and wise servant.' " (March 1, 1917, R 6049)
"The two most prominent messengers, however, are the first and the last--St. Paul and Pastor Russell . . ." (Nov 1, 1917, R 6159)
"Recognizing Brother Russell as the Lord's messenger to the Laodicean church and as the Lord's chosen servant . . . " (Dec 1, 1917, R 6181)
At Russell's funeral, Rutherford even acknowledged that people would come from afar to "worship" Rusell. (His words, not mine.)
"Charles Taze Russell, thou hast by the Lord, been crowned a king, and through the everlasting ages thy name shall be known amongst the people, and thy enemies shall come and worship at thy feet."
Some of these items were already brought up here at the following link and probably elsewhere, too: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/forums/topic/47934-charles-taze-russell-was-he-recently-canonized/
 

My next project (though I am distracted by nearly anything) is not to write another fine book, but to put my existing ones in audio version, starting with Dear Mr. Putin - Jehovah’s Witnesses Write Russia. Unlike the ebook versions of two of them, these will not be free, therefore perhaps @JOHN BUTLER‘s dream of my being a millionaire is not so far off.
There are still numerous little punctuation inconsistencies and minor typos in the book and I am steadily correcting all of them in the manuscript, to release a corrected version all at once. I may just have to accept that I will never be wholly consistent on single quotes and double quotes, mostly due to a lack of self-discipline. “I may not know art, but I know what I like.”
There is also a travel book coming up, which will include my typical musings and meandering, finding ways to insert scripture where you wouldn’t think they would fit, as well as some history. Tentatively, it is titled, ‘Go Where Tom Goes (Think What Tom Thinks)’ The travel book will be modest in scope because I don’t go to many places.
Get your order in quick, Billy

Power, authority, respect, rooms full of free money to spend any way they desire, living a very pleasant lifestyle in beautiful surroundings, being able to think of themselves as latter day Apostles, and the mortification of being caught.
Fortunately, there is nobody on Earth that can fire them ... AND THEY KNOW IT!

THIS... I would pay money to see!
I have not been to a Comedy Club in 25 years.

Your illustration would work if the changes through the years have been only greater refinement. The reality is that the organization has vacillated back-and-forth on its doctrines (organ transplants, the meaning of "superior authorities," and the understanding of fornication come to mind). This vacillation is a serious issue. Think of the people that died refusing organ transplants or the women that were falsely accused of "consenting" to rape due to their inability to yell out.

I wish I could agree. Fortunately, I believe there is a recent move towards a proper, Biblical standard of leadership. Unfortunately, we have a lot of documented evidence that the Watchtower GB have indeed deviated from Biblical standards of leadership.
For example, recall that in 2013, Charles Taze Russell (CTR) was finally removed from inclusion in the membership of the faithful and discreet slave, but that Joseph F Rutherford (JFR) now holds the "pre-eminent" position as the first well-known person that Jesus supposedly appointed to be a member of the "faithful and discreet slave" in 1919. Of course, JFR never noticed that Jesus had just appointed him to this position, because he went on claiming in 1919 and nearly until 1930 that he was NOT even a part of that "faithful and discreet slave" for several years after 1919. JFR claimed that only CTR held that office, and continued to publish the claim that CTR, in fact, was still "spirit-directing" the WTS from beyond the veil. JFR claimed that CTR was not only the "pre-eminent" member of the FDS, but that he was the ONLY person who had held that office.
In the WT, CTR was still considered a pre-eminent member of the FDS in these last days until the WTS removed him from ever having been a member of the FDS, as of that update in 2013.
But here is where the leadership problem comes in. Rutherford was known for blatant self-promotion, promoting a title and name for himself, advertising, advertising, advertising, and marketing stunts like putting the deed of a property in the name of Abraham, David, and other faithful "men of old." This might be just fine on its own, but he published the "Bulletin" and the "Messenger" which more than once printed the idea that disobeying Rutherford was tantamount to disobeying the Lord himself.
The idea that the organization was "spirit-directed" took on exactly the same meaning as "inspired." As an aside, someone recently pointed out that the term has now been removed from the baptism questions, and I think this is one of the steps in the right direction, in terms of leadership that is less presumptuous. (In fact, it is very difficult to translate the term spirit-directed into many languages in a way that would distinguish it from the term "inspired." Also, legally, it is easier to push legal liability back on local elders in cases of CSA legal errors, if the WTS stops using the term "spirit-directed" organization.)
But this idea of being "spirit-directed" was part of the deep-rooted belief that the "governing body" had about themselves. Twice, in court, (two different cases) members of the so-called "governing body" testified that Jehovah was the editor of the Watchtower. In fact, this was a reason (around 1931) for taking off all names of the editorial committee in Watchotwer publications except for Rutherford himself. 
We have had statements, even fairly recently, that continued to echo that same idea that Russell made when he said that reading his books would bring someone into the light in a short period of time, while reading the Bible alone would allow the same person to go off into darkness in a short period of time.
But back to the self-promotion of a leadership standard that was far from the standard Jesus set, as seen in Matthew and elsewhere. Here is an example from 1943 that I shared previously:
Watchtower, July 1, 1943 page 205:
Now, the apostle says, Jehovah speaks to us through his
Son. (Heb. 1: 1, 2) The Son has returned as King; he
has come to his temple. He has appointed his "faithful
and wise servant", who is his visible mouthpiece, and says
to those who are privileged to represent him upon the
earth, "This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in
all the world for a witness unto all nations" ...
These expressions of God's will by his King and through
his established agency constitute his law or rule of action
for the "faithful and wise servant" and for their goodwill
companions today... The Lord breaks down our
organization instructions further . . . . He says, 'Let us assign the field,
the world, to special pioneers, regular pioneers and companies
of Jehovah's witnesses. . . . He [the Lord]
says the requirements for special pioneers shall be 175
hours and 50 back-calls per month, which should develop
into a reasonable number of studies; and for regular
pioneers 150 hours and as many back-calls and studies as
can be properly developed during that time. And for
company publishers he says, 'Let us make a quota of 60
hours and 12 back-calls and at least one study a week
for each publisher.' These directions come to us from
the Lord through his established agency directing what
is required of us; . . . This expression of the Lord's will should be
the end of all controversy. It is for your good that these
requirements are made; for thereby you are enabled to
prove your integrity and magnify the Lord's name.
These directions from the Lord come to us as individuals
and as collective units called "companies". ...
They are to carry on all the forms of magazine work in
that assignment. ...
... The Lord through his "faithful and wise servant" now
states to us, "Let us cover our territory four times in six
months." That becomes our organization instructions and
has the same binding force on us that his statement to
the Logos had when he said, ''Let us make man in our
image." It is our duty to accept this additional instruction
and obey it. 
Since Jehovah was supposedly the Editor of this article, it made sense to the governing body that these words were to have the same binding force on us as any other command from Jehovah. The Watchtower's instructions to Witnesses were considered the equivalent of Jehovah's command to the Logos found in the words of the Bible in Genesis. This should make us think again when we see statements like:
"[A mature christian] does not advocate or insist on personal opinions or harbor private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding. Rather, he has complete confidence in the truth as it is revealed by Jehovah God through his Son, Jesus Christ, and "the faithful and discreet slave." (w01 8/1 p.14)     Those are not the words and attitude of persons who are humble, meek, faithful, wise and discreet.

This is not the whole truth of the matter. Exactly as I said previously, Russell taught that the household of faith was being fed by the anointed from about 1879 until about 1897. I believe the first Watchtower article claiming that the FDS was a single person or individual (and not a class of individuals) was actually published in 1896, but the primary source is the book "Battle of Armageddon" (Studies in the Scriptures Series, published 1897). He was reticent to go out and publicly proclaim that "this single individual" was he himself, even though it was already obvious to most, but he still allowed his wife to openly publicize the idea that Russell as publisher of the Watchtower, was referring to himself.
As I said:
Your supposed evidence was a quote from an 1880 Watchtower which was obviously from within the period that included 1879 to 1897. This was during those two decades when Russell was not directly pushing the idea that HE himself held the office of the FDS.
As someone recently said: you need to get your decades straight!

https://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/quotes/rape-fornication.php
Here you go, I'm only providing the link to the watchtower articles that state if a woman doesn't scream while she is being raped, she is guilty of fornication.

It's probably best if you would stop claiming that people who tell the truth are telling lies. You have consistently shown yourself to be quite uninformed and deficient in so many areas of Bible Student history. In spite of your claims and bluster you have never yet shown me any evidence of something I said that was wrong about Bible Student history, even though I'm sure to have made several mistakes as I often write about things from memory. But I've seen you make mistakes and false claims in the MAJORITY of your statements about Watchtower history or Bible Student history. You have made so many embarrassing errors when it comes to claims about Watchtower history that I have merely ignored dozens of them.
(You even seem to have forgotten more recent Watchtower history with regard to a woman's culpability if she didn't scream when raped. If I were to draw a conclusion based on your past levels of "honesty" I'd say you more likely are purposely trying to misunderstand this as a statement by NB that the WTS told women they could not scream.)

WOW!
 
 
 
.... now what?
 
Finding Nemo - Now what_!.mp4

WOW!
 
 
 
.... now what?
 
Finding Nemo - Now what_!.mp4

Perhaps it is. I appreciate the references but I have a more than sneaky feeling that we just do not know what the mechanics of this transference of life really entail. I have no problem at all in accepting the fact that these things have occurred or will occur, but the attempted explanations of how I find inadequate.
There are a number of instances.
Enoch's transference so as not to "see death". The materialisation of fully fleshly human bodies by spirit creatures The restoration of life to a corpse The transfer of Jesus from heaven to earth, from spirit to human form The resurrection of Jesus from human death to spirit life The 3rd heaven experience of Paul The resurrection of humans from human death to spirit life in the heavens The instantaneous transference of humans from human life on earth to spirit life in heaven The resurrection of humans from death to human life on earth across the passage of time The releasing of Satan from the abyss. "Above my pay grade" is the best I can do with these matters up to now. And I am happy with that. 

Sorry to disappoint. I usually give up on explaining things concisely at about the time I notice that I am already up to 20 paragraphs.
But I meant that there have already been several pages of explanations in this thread and others, going right back to your original question. The very fact that the GB produces contradictory statements about themselves, which are not based on scripture, that was what made me say that the GB cannot be the same as the FDS. A GB that declares itself to be the FDS is already "publishing a flawed argument" "skating close to the edge" and "in no man's land" if I may borrow some verbiage from Outta Here.
This goes back to a WT quote that Noble Berean provided, back on page 5 or so:
"[A mature christian] does not advocate or insist on personal opinions or harbor private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding. Rather, he has complete confidence in the truth as it is revealed by Jehovah God through his Son, Jesus Christ, and "the faithful and discreet slave." (w01 8/1 p.14)  
And a similar one here:
*** w04 10/1 p. 7 “The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth”—How? ***
One who is meek humbly accepts God’s standards in all aspects of his personal life; he does not insist on going by his own views or by other people’s opinions. He is also teachable, willing to be taught by Jehovah. The psalmist David wrote: “[Jehovah] will cause the meek ones to walk in his judicial decision, and he will teach the meek ones his way.”—Psalm 25:9; Proverbs 3:5, 6.
We now see that it has been admitted that the GB have sometimes been advocating or insisting on their own views. Several of these views have been "false" as they have now admitted. It is clear that in some cases these have merely been based on other people's opinions, often their own predecessors on the GB. They have sometimes forgotten to be meek. Although they admit that some of the teachings and direction has been incorrect, they have sometimes forgotten the meekness and humility that should come from these experiences and continue to insist that others should have "complete confidence in the truth as it is revealed by . . . the faithful and discreet slave."
Well that is the same as saying that we should have complete confidence in views and opinions that are prone to error, potentially false and uninspired, just because they have been mixed in with truths revealed from Jehovah through his Son, Jesus Christ. 
But with true humility, faithfulness and discretion it doesn't have to be this way.
The GB, as overseers (elders), are reaching out for an oversight position over the extended worldwide congregations, and are therefore reaching out for a fine work. It is a very valuable and useful office of oversight. And through it they can preside over various questions and concerns, while considering input and issues from all over the world. But in any position of privilege or heavy responsibility there is a danger that Jesus clearly warned about. If we take Jesus' words seriously, we will be on the watch for the very examples that Jesus warned about. We know that the GB consider themselves to be in a position much like that of the original 12 apostles, or that of the "NT" Bible writers, and the Bible tells us what such positions can lead to: the desire for control, power, prominence, leadership, and even obedience.
(Matthew 19:27-20:27) . . .Then Peter said in reply: “Look! We have left all things and followed you; what, then, will there be for us?” . . .[Jesus answered] you who have followed me will sit on 12 thrones, judging the 12 tribes of Israel. 29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands for the sake of my name will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit everlasting life.
30 “But many who are first will be last and the last first. . . .‘These last men put in one hour’s work; still you made them equal to us who bore the burden of the day and the burning heat!’ 13 But he said in reply to one of them, ‘Fellow, I do you no wrong. You agreed with me for a de·narʹi·us, did you not? 14 Take what is yours and go. I want to give to this last one the same as to you. . . .  Or is your eye envious because I am good?’ 16 In this way, the last ones will be first, and the first ones last.” . . .
20 Then the mother of the sons of Zebʹe·dee approached him with her sons, . . . .  “Give the word that these two sons of mine may sit down, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your Kingdom.”  . . . 23 He said to them: “You will indeed drink my cup, but to sit down at my right hand and at my left is not mine to give, but it belongs to those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.”
24 When the ten others heard about it, they became indignant at the two brothers. 25 But Jesus called them to him and said: “You know that the rulers of the nations lord it over them and the great men wield authority over them. 26 This must not be the way among you; but whoever wants to become great among you must be your minister, 27 and whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave.
I think there is a tendency for all of us to want to read into the first century congregation a kind of human authority structure among the apostles and older men of Jerusalem that just wasn't there. The apostles remaining in Jerusalem prior to the writing of the "NT" has allready served its purpose, and is not intended as an ongoing model of apostolic succession in the last days. Because we are only human, we think that the hierarchical system under Moses, and therefore the "seat of Moses" was intended to continue into Christian times. We are therefore anxious to see any criticizers as "Korah vs Moses." We don't have the faith that true Christianity can thrive without a group of men wielding authority. (Just as Israel didn't think they could compete with nations around them without a king.)
We tend not to see this wielding of authority as a problem, because MOST of what the GB relays and publishes is perfectly acceptable. But this lax attitude toward what Jesus warned us about can result in a very dangerous situation for Christians. We do not mature as we should to stand on our own, because it's so much easier to just accept humans as leaders, and accept them as vicars of Christ. Paul pointed out the folly of this very attitude toward other humans who think they should be more than what even the "apostles" were, and who want to be more than just faithful and discreet "stewards." They will tend to go beyond the things written; to want honor, and to judge, and to govern.
(1 Corinthians 4:2-10) 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. In fact, I do not even examine myself. 4 For I am not conscious of anything against myself. But by this I am not proved righteous; the one who examines me is Jehovah. 5 Therefore, do not judge anything before the due time, until the Lord comes. He will bring the secret things of darkness to light and make known the intentions of the hearts, and then each one will receive his praise from God. 6 Now, brothers, these things I have applied to myself and A·polʹlos for your good, that through us you may learn the rule: “Do not go beyond the things that are written,” so that you may not be puffed up with pride, favoring one against the other. 7 For who makes you different from another? Indeed, what do you have that you did not receive? If, in fact, you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not receive it? 8 Are you already satisfied? Are you already rich? Have you begun ruling as kings without us? I really wish that you had begun ruling as kings, so that we also might rule with you as kings. 9 For it seems to me that God has put us the apostles last on exhibition as men condemned to death, because we have become a theatrical spectacle to the world, and to angels and to men. 10 We are fools because of Christ, but you are discreet in Christ; we are weak, but you are strong; you are held in honor, but we in dishonor. These men wanted to be "guardians" when Paul indicated that the entire worldwide congregation were their/our guardians:
(1 Corinthians 4:15) . . .For though you may have 10,000 guardians in Christ. . . (Romans 14:12) . . .So, then, each of us will render an account for himself to God. (Romans 14:4) 4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for Jehovah can make him stand. (Galatians 6:4, 5) 4 But let each one examine his own actions, and then he will have cause for rejoicing in regard to himself alone, and not in comparison with the other person. 5 For each one will carry his own load.

Sorry to interrupt this way of reasoning you display, because by such logic we can ask, why to talking about Bible and all that stories from old age, .... that were written much, much longer ago than it is 1900th ??  
Speaking about past WT publications contents, shows people of today (JW and non JW)  how shall look like the future for WT Society, and what people can expect from this Organization about teachings and internal rules.
 

Are you ashamed of what the watchtower has said?

Which quote or reference is WRONG?
 
I know you guys are NOT allowed to think for yourselves. ie:
 
1983 "Avoid independent thinking...questioning the counsel that is provided by God's visible organization." (Watchtower, Jan. 15, 1983 pg. 22)
1983 "Fight against independent thinking." (Watchtower, Jan. 15, 1983 pg. 27 )
 
 
But, i quote YOUR sources.

What grudge? I am just sharing the truth from the watchtower!

I understand the point you are making ... and it is a good extrapolation ... except a "soul" is someone ( OR SOME LIVING CREATURE ...) who breathes atmospheric oxygen mix.   The reason we do NOT have to bleed fish (often caught in nets by the thousands ...) is that they ARE not souls. They do not live and breathe air.
I eat clam chowder at least four times a week.
How would you bleed a clam?
They are CHANGED in the twinkling of an eye ... to another life form ... not extracted.
Uh... people, not clams.
 
 

... I know that weasels do .....

... think about how EFFECTIVE it would be if therapists just let patients beat the hell out of them for a half hour ....
... it probably works like that, both ways!
 

More like the "man of five minutes" ... unless you are distracted by a squirrel outside your window.
You have medallions?

holding?
Usually intrepid is prefaced by  "Here...hold my beer"

...... I just cheeked this thread, all the way back to the beginning, and there are no "Weasel" series cartoons here, so that gives me a good excuse to post some of  them here, on THIS thread, which is already 11 pages.