JW Insider

OK. I have long believed this explains a goo part of the issues. The Flood has been pointed to for a lot of things. I just have never made the time to study the evidence. I'm sure a worldwide flood would be expected to create a lot of shifting and catastrophic changes. We've even made claims (like Young Earth Creationists) that the pre-Flood atmosphere would have allowed less of certain types of dangerous radiation in, and that the post-Flood radiation would somehow have changed Carbon 14 dating accuracy. I don't think we ever figured out a scientific way this was possible though.

I've interacted with Harry Peloyan, and thought him to be honest. But I do believe the Evolution book (1967) was almost entirely his own work. He never told me, but he dropped enough hints. Do you think he was behind the 1985 book?
I can believe that Peloyan enjoyed making secularists look bad. I find it hard to believe, however, that Peloyan admitted that he used "dishonesty" to make secularists look bad. But he did make it through Harvard, and I therefore can't believe he didn't realize what he was doing was wrong. Today, one could be kicked out of Harvard for some of the same quoting tactics.

You are right that there has been a movement to "normalize" all this supposed sexual fluidity and new definitions. These supposedly progressive "culture warriors" are out there trying to get anything and everything made acceptable. It's a real mess. And it is also working as a trap for stupid Americans (apologies to stupid Americans) who think that this is some wonderful bandwagon to jump on.
Even in many colleges and universities, so-called places for progress and freedom, many of these "culture warriors" have tried to suppress speech, etc.

This would mean that you think the dinosaurs died out about 4,400 years ago?
I heard you mention a couple of these. The ones I looked up didn't pan out. The claims about them were not very scientific. And obviously this is where I would hope that new answers will show up, and hopefully this is where WTS writers will be especially helpful. While I was at Bethel there was no one who knew much of anything about this type of science. If there was, he or she didn't speak up when the Evolution book was ready for an update.

If you are referring to me here, then you should know that I am not disappointed in Jehovah, nor in Creation. I am only disappointed that our explanations are not able to keep up with the evidence. I can't think of another way to put it, but this is an area where we must currently reject evidence, some of which I have gone to see for myself, hoping the evidence was more ambiguous. There are many ways to resolve the existence of God and even MOST of the evidence. But we are clearly oversimplifying the process of creation if those unresolved pieces of evidence are real. 
And I have no problem with imagining that Jehovah created many thousands of species that we have not yet seen, and that creation was a much a grander and more wonderful process than we could imagine. I still think there is a good explanation out there somewhere. I am disappointed, not in the Bible, but in the fact that some WTS writers, especially in the past, had misused the writings of evolutionists instead of dealing with the evidence itself. I wasn't referring to the case that TTH mentioned. But I didn't think this point was generally in question.

On the overall subject of evolution, I don't pretend to know the answers. I think that a lot of the evidence on both sides has been misunderstood, but every time I try to look into it myself, it seems that the "wrong" evidence is winning. My mother believes that Satan, who keeps transforming himself into an angel of light, was given powers/permission to hide fossils in whatever places he wished to cause confusion and division. (Perhaps a hint of this in Satan's argument over Moses' body in Jude 9.) I don't like this theory at all. I've mostly heard it from young earth creationists, and was actually surprised to hear it from my mother. It brings up so many questions about the timing of such "miracles" that Satan was allowed to perform. Were these fossils moved at the time of the Garden of Eden? Is Satan still allowed to perform these miracles today?
I've heard my father (in fact I've been with him at museums) back in the years when he tried to explain the feathers on certain non-flying dinosaurs as feathery-looking ferns and/or other leaves and plants. I've now seen enough of these fossils up close so that I realize he is just grasping at straws.
I have always assumed that there is a bigger puzzle here and that none of us are ready to deal with all the facts and evidence yet. Although my own son (the math/physicist) tells me that the sum total of the evidence does currently fit the evolution theory, with some minor exceptions not yet understood, but which will probably still fit among the current theories, with minor adjustments.
To my son's credit, he does not believe the current theories are necessarily final, and they don't prove there is no God.
But here is the most surprising thing about my son's belief: The current theories are the ones that HONEST scientists are forced to accept based on rules of handling scientific evidence. It's not the same as scholars having a vested interest in keeping things going because of power and influence. In fact, if a scientist could come up with a new theory that fits the facts and evidence, he would become the new Darwin. It's probably the "holy grail" of scientists to be able to topple a current theory with a better explanation for all the evidence The problem is not the scholars, or the theory, it's that this theory is the RIGHT one from the perspective of science. It fits the old evidence and the new evidence, so far.
The best the Society can do is to look for inconsistencies and disagreements among certain scientists, and make the most of these issues to show us that there is still some room for disagreement over certain bits of evidence. I'm very disappointed when the WTS writers stoop to misquoting the evolutionary scientists, however, or quote a religious view from a different kind of scientist who clearly never dealt with evolutionary theory. I'd like to think that the WTS writers were only being careless when looking for ways to discredit evolutionary scientists, but the clever way in which words have been selected for quotes, with other words left out, tells me that the writers have sometimes understood the original intent and stooped to dishonesty. I'm not sure why a WTS writer would ever think this was a reasonable solution for us. But it tells me that the WTS is not ready to explain the overall evidence yet.
This reminds me of a problem I've had with uranium. What GOOD is it?
Radioactive substances were clearly on the earth when Jehovah declared each successive day "good." And after the sixth day he could look back and see that everything he had made was good.
Was it good because humans might find that some radioactive elements could be made to produce heat like coals? Obviously not! Were all radioactive elements and substances kept out of man's reach so that he would never come across them?
Perhaps it was so that man would someday harness these powers and create a safe source of energy? This implies that Jehovah wanted mankind to develop technologically, and as indicated by the Tower of Babel, perhaps controlled the pace of that progress until today or some time in the near future. But if we don't really need it until the new system, why not make it in the new system, in much the same way that he provided quail or manna. And why would we need it in the new system, anyway?
I can understand how Jehovah could have made all animals subject to man such as in a Garden of Eden. Even animals that are violent with one another can still be trained to be peaceful in their interaction with humans.
But perhaps this is the same argument that AlanF is making about thousands of years of animals being violent and unloving with one another. I have less problem with that, than with all the things that would seem to be poison to us, and which we would only learn about through dangerous, even lethal, experimentation. Does EVERY poison and danger have a good side? When did certain plants and elements become poisonous to us? Only after Adam's sin?

Which proves my contention about the diversity of animals which CAN eat poisonous plants. ...... where did this new DNA suddenly come from which made a poison their food?   
 
True, some mathematicians indicate that the entire time given by evolutionists for the diversity of animals to come about by the chance of beneficial selection is not  enough time to build one folded protein..... the chances are zero.
Yes, I am an independent type of person.  That is why I do not lap up your gobbledegook.  I am also not prone to make gods out of men.  So mommy watchtower is not my only source of information.
Adam understood that he would go to dust if he disobeyed....... animals died.  Mice live one year in the wild and three years in domestic environment.
Wild animals could be put in sanctuary areas.... but personally.... I believe animals can be tamed and animals can adapt to a new diet.  In the Brazilian jungle there are dogs that get no meat. They mostly eat plant material. 
Carrion eaters can be tamed but maybe they were created to keep the earth clean from dead animals. ...so we will soon see.  

I've interacted with Harry Peloyan, and thought him to be honest. But I do believe the Evolution book (1967) was almost entirely his own work. He never told me, but he dropped enough hints. Do you think he was behind the 1985 book?
I can believe that Peloyan enjoyed making secularists look bad. I find it hard to believe, however, that Peloyan admitted that he used "dishonesty" to make secularists look bad. But he did make it through Harvard, and I therefore can't believe he didn't realize what he was doing was wrong. Today, one could be kicked out of Harvard for some of the same quoting tactics.

You are right that there has been a movement to "normalize" all this supposed sexual fluidity and new definitions. These supposedly progressive "culture warriors" are out there trying to get anything and everything made acceptable. It's a real mess. And it is also working as a trap for stupid Americans (apologies to stupid Americans) who think that this is some wonderful bandwagon to jump on.
Even in many colleges and universities, so-called places for progress and freedom, many of these "culture warriors" have tried to suppress speech, etc.

Do they? It is in the eye of the beholder. Must one really point out when quoting a scientist that he believes his own theory.
I gave an example with Darwin’s quote about the eye:
Darwin wrote:
“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”....
Q: If you quote this line, do you really have to add:  “of course, this is not to suggest that Darwin does not believe in his own theory of evolution by natural selection”?
I would never have thought so. I mean, what do you expect his next words to be? “Thus we can see that my entire theory is a load of horse manure. But I'm in this to win the praise of my peers, who for some reason, eat this stuff up. That, and maybe there's a buck to be made. So I'm putting lipstick on this pig. I'm sticking to my guns, even though you know, and I know, that it's all nonsense.”??
No! He's not going to say that! He's going to say something like: “Still, many now-established truths seemed equally absurd when first proposed. Evidence is scanty with relationship to the eye's development....no one's saying otherwise..... but we can expect future researchers to uncover corroborating material.”
That's my prediction (without peeking). In fact, he says almost exactly that:
“When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.”
Alright, then. Pretty much what I predicted he would say. Any donkey ought to realize Darwin's not throwing in the towel on his own theory by admitting evolution of the eye sounds ridiculous. If you use his quote to suggest he considers himself a charlatan, that's dishonest. But if you use his quote to show he acknowledges some pretty high hurdles exist in proving his theory.....well, what's wrong with that?
.........The above is from the post: 
Darwin wrote:
“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”....
Q: If you quote this line, do you really have to add:  “of course, this is not to suggest that Darwin does not believe in his own theory of evolution by natural selection”?
I would never have thought so. I mean, what do you expect his next words to be? “Thus we can see that my entire theory is a load of horse manure. But I'm in this to win the praise of my peers, who for some reason, eat this stuff up. That, and maybe there's a buck to be made. So I'm putting lipstick on this pig. I'm sticking to my guns, even though you know, and I know, that it's all nonsense.”??
No! He's not going to say that! He's going to say something like: “Still, many now-established truths seemed equally absurd when first proposed. Evidence is scanty with relationship to the eye's development....no one's saying otherwise..... but we can expect future researchers to uncover corroborating material.”
That's my prediction (without peeking). In fact, he says almost exactly that:
“When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.”
Alright, then. Pretty much what I predicted he would say. Any donkey ought to realize Darwin's not throwing in the towel on his own theory by admitting evolution of the eye sounds ridiculous. If you use his quote to suggest he considers himself a charlatan, that's dishonest. But if you use his quote to show he acknowledges some pretty high hurdles exist in proving his theory.....well, what's wrong with that?
......The above is from the 2011 post: https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2011/01/darwins-eye.html
which goes on to consider numerous examples from the 2 most recent brochures on creation v evolution. Numerous footnotes appear to point out that this or that scientist obviously believes in his own theory.
I think that’s sufficiently honest.

I can respond to that since you appear to be drawing assumptions without having all the facts. I completely agree that one should go to the police when dealing with such issues involving a minor. In fact, the direction we get from the society is to do just that. One of the reasons we are instructed to call Bethel is to make sure we comply with all current reporting laws regarding child molestation. Some of the problems we have had in the past (and I have personally attended in court), have been because brothers had not acted in harmony with the instructions given because they haven't paid attention or been casual about doing their homework. The examples I had cited were from many years ago when the current laws were not in place and in fact, they have been evolving over the years - and in some cases, a moving target. Those individuals affected are now adults with the freedom to choose to go to the police under the current laws if they so choose. However, if what they had done decades ago occurred now, it would be an entirely different story. Our policies have changed as well to comply with legal requirements. 
In my country years ago, both doctors and clergy were simply not allowed to go public with what was then considered private/protected/privileged information and if they did so, legal repercussions could arise. For instance, it wasn't until the '80's that the laws changed and doctors were required to report cases of AIDS for - which was then transferred to a national data-base. One of the reasons for this was that certain individuals were deliberately spreading AIDS and partners needed to be warned. Likewise as molestation cases came to the fore, the laws gradually changed. But even then, at times they applied in different ways and in different areas, or not at all. (i.e. ARC hearings...) We now have more comprehensive laws that address these injustices - requiring/allowing religious authorities to report them without legal repercussions. So to be clear, elders are REQUIRED to report these cases now and the legal department is involved to ensure they do just that. Unfortunately, we have had to learn the hard way what would have been the morally right thing in the first place. But we have made the changes. 
 If anyone in a responsible position is aware of child molestation going on, he is legally bound to report it to the authorities. But if he fails to do so and must face the legal consequences for his non-action, (which as we know can have devastating consequences for the minor) I can't say I'd feel sorry for him. 
Gen. 42:22 "Did I not say to you, 'Do not sin against the child,' but you would not listen?' Now his blood is certainly being asked back.
James 4:17 "Therefore, if someone knows how to do what is right and yet does not do it, it is a sin for him."

Brother Greenlees and Brother Chitty are not mentioned in the Proclaimer's book. Interesting that Percy Chapman (included in the picture above) is still mentioned now and then, often in the same context with Brother Greenlees. He was more "openly homosexual" to the dismay of Brother Knorr who continued to work with him anyway. I never knew that Brother Ewart Chitty was homosexual and assumed it was a rumor although I was told it was a fact by several. People also told me that Brother Greenlees was homosexual. In his case, there was good reason to believe them. But I never heard any facts for sure about the molestation charges, although it was a well-known rumor.
I should add, however, that there may be nothing wrong with trusting a homosexual brother to handle high levels of responsibility. The predisposition of someone should not disqualify them from responsibility as long as they can handle the responsibility without bringing reproach on Jehovah, on themselves, or others, and/or scandal upon the congregation. If a brother has already proven himself faithful and morally clean for many years, even if he struggles with sinful thoughts, then he is probably not so different from anyone else who was on the Governing Body at the time, even if these particular sins seem much more unexpected. Paul spoke of struggling with sin even as an apostle.

So, I've been mostly away from my computer for a few days, and it looks like this entire forum has been mashed up into a single thread/topic. I know that I was given the ability to move posts around to new threads, and I probably should have started to do that many days ago. (When I began I realized it was too late.)
But I also understand the simplicity (and short-term efficiency) of putting everything in the thread that people are actively participating in. In the longer-term, it's less efficient for those who need to go back and try to respond to things.
Since I think I'm getting in here at the tail end, I hoped to summarize a bit, and had hoped that Anna, Tom, Arauna, any "Allen Smith" alternative would have tired out AlanF so I could pretend to have delivered a final knock-out punch. But it keeps going and going with no end in sight. And there is no single topic on which one could hope to offer a "summary defense."
TTH, in spite of letting his tomfoolery characters get out of hand, has used them to point out so many of the areas where AlanF shows unnecessary antagonism, lack of empathy, and a lack of humor. He has also pointed out that AlanF's super-hypercritical view of JW leadership is also hypocritical in that an atheist should have no reason to pick on the spiritual and doctrinal beliefs of just one particular religion among hundreds. 
I like that Anna has picked up on some flaws in AlanF's reasoning. I think AlanF still argues against JW leadership from the FWF-era, especially the 1950's through the 1980's, when Anna and others have picked up on positive signs of transition, away from much of the dogmatism of that era. Slowly, I see some of the old arguments disintegrating, especially in moving a few of the events, once applied to 1918, 1919 and 1914, now being more correctly applied to the 1st century or the future judgment.
I like that Arauna has included some excellent points on intelligent design, some of which AlanF doesn't care to counter, but resorts to the trusty old ad hominem instead, either against Arauna or her sources.
Personally, I wish I could say more on the evolution/creation debate, but I've never tackled the relevant literature, and I can tell that even our own Writing Department has made enough mistakes in misquoting the relevant scientists that they aren't ready to fully tackle this topic either. However, I have a deep love for the Bible as God's Word, and the amazing consistency of the Bible books from first to last, and I have to wonder at the amazingly wide distribution of this particular book to every corner of the world. It's awe-inspiring. Because of this, I'll take "Pascal's wager," that even if we are of all men most to be pitied (if our faith is misplaced) we really have nothing to lose and much to gain if our faith puts us on God's side.
Besides, in the meantime, the true measure of Christianity is the activity that makes the world a better place and also makes us better individuals. We might even be better "neighbors" on random Internet forums, than those who reject Christian principles altogether.

So, I've been mostly away from my computer for a few days, and it looks like this entire forum has been mashed up into a single thread/topic. I know that I was given the ability to move posts around to new threads, and I probably should have started to do that many days ago. (When I began I realized it was too late.)
But I also understand the simplicity (and short-term efficiency) of putting everything in the thread that people are actively participating in. In the longer-term, it's less efficient for those who need to go back and try to respond to things.
Since I think I'm getting in here at the tail end, I hoped to summarize a bit, and had hoped that Anna, Tom, Arauna, any "Allen Smith" alternative would have tired out AlanF so I could pretend to have delivered a final knock-out punch. But it keeps going and going with no end in sight. And there is no single topic on which one could hope to offer a "summary defense."
TTH, in spite of letting his tomfoolery characters get out of hand, has used them to point out so many of the areas where AlanF shows unnecessary antagonism, lack of empathy, and a lack of humor. He has also pointed out that AlanF's super-hypercritical view of JW leadership is also hypocritical in that an atheist should have no reason to pick on the spiritual and doctrinal beliefs of just one particular religion among hundreds. 
I like that Anna has picked up on some flaws in AlanF's reasoning. I think AlanF still argues against JW leadership from the FWF-era, especially the 1950's through the 1980's, when Anna and others have picked up on positive signs of transition, away from much of the dogmatism of that era. Slowly, I see some of the old arguments disintegrating, especially in moving a few of the events, once applied to 1918, 1919 and 1914, now being more correctly applied to the 1st century or the future judgment.
I like that Arauna has included some excellent points on intelligent design, some of which AlanF doesn't care to counter, but resorts to the trusty old ad hominem instead, either against Arauna or her sources.
Personally, I wish I could say more on the evolution/creation debate, but I've never tackled the relevant literature, and I can tell that even our own Writing Department has made enough mistakes in misquoting the relevant scientists that they aren't ready to fully tackle this topic either. However, I have a deep love for the Bible as God's Word, and the amazing consistency of the Bible books from first to last, and I have to wonder at the amazingly wide distribution of this particular book to every corner of the world. It's awe-inspiring. Because of this, I'll take "Pascal's wager," that even if we are of all men most to be pitied (if our faith is misplaced) we really have nothing to lose and much to gain if our faith puts us on God's side.
Besides, in the meantime, the true measure of Christianity is the activity that makes the world a better place and also makes us better individuals. We might even be better "neighbors" on random Internet forums, than those who reject Christian principles altogether.

So, I've been mostly away from my computer for a few days, and it looks like this entire forum has been mashed up into a single thread/topic. I know that I was given the ability to move posts around to new threads, and I probably should have started to do that many days ago. (When I began I realized it was too late.)
But I also understand the simplicity (and short-term efficiency) of putting everything in the thread that people are actively participating in. In the longer-term, it's less efficient for those who need to go back and try to respond to things.
Since I think I'm getting in here at the tail end, I hoped to summarize a bit, and had hoped that Anna, Tom, Arauna, any "Allen Smith" alternative would have tired out AlanF so I could pretend to have delivered a final knock-out punch. But it keeps going and going with no end in sight. And there is no single topic on which one could hope to offer a "summary defense."
TTH, in spite of letting his tomfoolery characters get out of hand, has used them to point out so many of the areas where AlanF shows unnecessary antagonism, lack of empathy, and a lack of humor. He has also pointed out that AlanF's super-hypercritical view of JW leadership is also hypocritical in that an atheist should have no reason to pick on the spiritual and doctrinal beliefs of just one particular religion among hundreds. 
I like that Anna has picked up on some flaws in AlanF's reasoning. I think AlanF still argues against JW leadership from the FWF-era, especially the 1950's through the 1980's, when Anna and others have picked up on positive signs of transition, away from much of the dogmatism of that era. Slowly, I see some of the old arguments disintegrating, especially in moving a few of the events, once applied to 1918, 1919 and 1914, now being more correctly applied to the 1st century or the future judgment.
I like that Arauna has included some excellent points on intelligent design, some of which AlanF doesn't care to counter, but resorts to the trusty old ad hominem instead, either against Arauna or her sources.
Personally, I wish I could say more on the evolution/creation debate, but I've never tackled the relevant literature, and I can tell that even our own Writing Department has made enough mistakes in misquoting the relevant scientists that they aren't ready to fully tackle this topic either. However, I have a deep love for the Bible as God's Word, and the amazing consistency of the Bible books from first to last, and I have to wonder at the amazingly wide distribution of this particular book to every corner of the world. It's awe-inspiring. Because of this, I'll take "Pascal's wager," that even if we are of all men most to be pitied (if our faith is misplaced) we really have nothing to lose and much to gain if our faith puts us on God's side.
Besides, in the meantime, the true measure of Christianity is the activity that makes the world a better place and also makes us better individuals. We might even be better "neighbors" on random Internet forums, than those who reject Christian principles altogether.

So, I've been mostly away from my computer for a few days, and it looks like this entire forum has been mashed up into a single thread/topic. I know that I was given the ability to move posts around to new threads, and I probably should have started to do that many days ago. (When I began I realized it was too late.)
But I also understand the simplicity (and short-term efficiency) of putting everything in the thread that people are actively participating in. In the longer-term, it's less efficient for those who need to go back and try to respond to things.
Since I think I'm getting in here at the tail end, I hoped to summarize a bit, and had hoped that Anna, Tom, Arauna, any "Allen Smith" alternative would have tired out AlanF so I could pretend to have delivered a final knock-out punch. But it keeps going and going with no end in sight. And there is no single topic on which one could hope to offer a "summary defense."
TTH, in spite of letting his tomfoolery characters get out of hand, has used them to point out so many of the areas where AlanF shows unnecessary antagonism, lack of empathy, and a lack of humor. He has also pointed out that AlanF's super-hypercritical view of JW leadership is also hypocritical in that an atheist should have no reason to pick on the spiritual and doctrinal beliefs of just one particular religion among hundreds. 
I like that Anna has picked up on some flaws in AlanF's reasoning. I think AlanF still argues against JW leadership from the FWF-era, especially the 1950's through the 1980's, when Anna and others have picked up on positive signs of transition, away from much of the dogmatism of that era. Slowly, I see some of the old arguments disintegrating, especially in moving a few of the events, once applied to 1918, 1919 and 1914, now being more correctly applied to the 1st century or the future judgment.
I like that Arauna has included some excellent points on intelligent design, some of which AlanF doesn't care to counter, but resorts to the trusty old ad hominem instead, either against Arauna or her sources.
Personally, I wish I could say more on the evolution/creation debate, but I've never tackled the relevant literature, and I can tell that even our own Writing Department has made enough mistakes in misquoting the relevant scientists that they aren't ready to fully tackle this topic either. However, I have a deep love for the Bible as God's Word, and the amazing consistency of the Bible books from first to last, and I have to wonder at the amazingly wide distribution of this particular book to every corner of the world. It's awe-inspiring. Because of this, I'll take "Pascal's wager," that even if we are of all men most to be pitied (if our faith is misplaced) we really have nothing to lose and much to gain if our faith puts us on God's side.
Besides, in the meantime, the true measure of Christianity is the activity that makes the world a better place and also makes us better individuals. We might even be better "neighbors" on random Internet forums, than those who reject Christian principles altogether.

I find your lack of faith disturbing.

In addition, anointed Christians do not view themselves as being part of an elite club. They do not seek out others who claim to have the same calling, hoping to bond with them or endeavoring to form private groups for Bible study. (Gal. 1:15-17) Such efforts would cause divisions within the congregation and work against the holy spirit, which promotes peace and unity.   wt 1/2016, "We Want to Go With You".
It would be important and interesting to see what are examples that WT Society GB and elders saw as danger for Corporation and as braking Bible Principles. 
We all are aware how people doing this sort of "separation" inside same structure. "Birds of feather flock together". It is visible to many how JW people contribute in various measures to this same. Bethel workers are one "social class", also pioneers understanding each other more than some other level of brotherhood can do that. Brothers who are wealthier or have more education find more friends inside such people and making that sort of "social group". Poor brothers understand each other more, much better than someone who has plenty of money can have that compassion to them. All such gathering can be seen as gathering based on some reasons that is not "Biblical", but it is not so simple or good  to make automatic conclusion or judgement.
If anointed individuals understand each other more better and in special way, it is normal to see them want to spend more time been together. Do you want to spend more of your time with people who understand you and your inner life or you want to be with those people who can't do that??
We all can be seen as "elite" in own eyes, or in eyes of other.
Warning about private groups for study Bible is based on need to control everyone, not just appointed. 
 

I think I am going to find that quote, cut it out, have it laminated, and keep it in my wallet, as a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card for future use.
Several years ago I was Df'd, and at one of my many reinstatement hearings over a period of three years, the last one where I was reinstated, the C.C. asked me something along the lines of "What do you think about the decisions of the Governing Body?"
I looked at him in the eyes and replied "I will have to agree with what was stated in the February 2017 Watchtower, that they are neither inspired, or infallible."
Dead silence as if they had been bonked on the head with a wooden mallet.
Then the C.C. said to the other two Brothers' surprise "Oh, yeah ... I remember reading about that ...".
I was reinstated the following Wednesday night at the Circuit Overseer's visit.
 

I don't have any way of telling. As of about the last four or five years, the last of the writers I might have generally recognized are failing in health and getting very few, if any, new assignments. (Aulicino, Smalley, Wischuk).
I noticed that in the preceding paragraph there is a point about "greenhouses" that appears incomplete. This is sometimes a hint that it was edited down from a talk that had once expanded on the greenhouse illustration. Perhaps someone remembers who gave such a talk?
*** w19 September p. 23 pars. 10-11 “Come to Me, . . . and I Will Refresh You” ***
10 Jesus created a peaceful, inviting environment for his fellow workers, and he enjoyed training them. (Luke 10:1, 19-21) He encouraged his disciples to ask questions, and he wanted to hear their opinions. (Matt. 16:13-16) Much like plants in a greenhouse, the disciples flourished. They absorbed the lessons that Jesus taught and produced fruit in the form of good works.
11 Do you have a position of authority? If so, ask yourself: ‘What kind of environment do I create at work or at home? Do I promote peace? Do I encourage others to ask questions? And am I willing to hear their opinions?’ Never would we want to be like the Pharisees, who resented those who questioned them and persecuted those who expressed an opinion contrary to their own.—Mark 3:1-6; John 9:29-34.
There is no specific reason to reference greenhouses as they are not mentioned in the Bible. There is just as much reason to say above "Much like plants in a fertile, well-watered field, the disciples flourished." The reason to mention a greenhouse is to speak about a closed environment "independent of external circumstances" and independent of "world" conditions. That is not done above, but was the previous use in a 1997 Watchtower:
*** w97 1/1 p. 4 Why Should We All Praise God? ***
It can be cultivated independent of external circumstances, just as plants can grow in a greenhouse whatever the weather is like outside.”
In general, the proofreaders would never question something like this. It's the type of thing that an editorial committee (and/or GB) might question. But only if they were thinking in the mindset of how it might be used against them. When editors are reading it as counsel only for others and not for themselves, it's easy to say things that might sound hypocritical or self-incriminating.
Of course, I prefer the idea that Brother Splane, for example, is using an opportunity to create a more open Society. Perhaps opening up a question or suggestion box on JW.ORG. Perhaps allowing suggestions to be upvoted and downvoted by millions of JWs. 😀  Splane, of course, was the one to make the biggest use of Luke 10 to highlight Jesus' methods of teaching in his Annual Meeting talk in 2014, and this is echoed in paragraph 10.

I liked the citing of vs 21 in that paragraph, presented as though it had just dawned upon Jesus himself how the father operated:
21In that very hour he became overjoyed in the holy spirit and said: “I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have carefully hidden these things from wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to young children. Yes, O Father, because this is the way you approved.

The focus on only supporting future wars to be led by Christ Jesus directly, has promoted the idea that we really are expected to be pacifists. Also the idea that we focus ONLY on spiritual warfare leads to the same conclusion. As late as 2003, a convention talk mentioned this:
*** w03 1/15 p. 26 “Zealous Kingdom Proclaimers” Joyfully Assemble ***
The second speaker in this symposium addressed questions relating to neutrality. Early Christians were not pacifists, but they recognized that their prime allegiance was to God. Likewise today, Jehovah’s Witnesses hold firmly to the principle: “You are no part of the world.” (John 15:19) Since tests of our neutrality can arise quickly, families ought to make time to review the Bible’s guidelines on this subject.
Generally, however, the impression is given that we are very much like pacifists but don't want the label because it's often associated with protestors and radicals. However, the farther back one searches in the publications, the more we see that the discussion could include acceptable self-defense.
*** w64 8/15 p. 484 Those Who Pursue Peace ***
Actually, Jehovah’s witnesses are not in “rebellion” against the activities of any government, but they do maintain uncompromising neutrality as to the world’s political and military affairs, as they follow the Scriptural injunction to ‘seek peace and pursue it.’ They are not pacifists. They do not oppose any government’s program of military conscription or demonstrate against it, but they submit themselves to God’s arrangement of things.
*** w55 8/1 p. 478 Questions From Readers ***
However, this refusal to pay back insult for insult does not mean Christians are to be pacifists or that they must never resort to self-defense.
 

I presume @admin has given up on keeping things on topic  

I don't have any way of telling. As of about the last four or five years, the last of the writers I might have generally recognized are failing in health and getting very few, if any, new assignments. (Aulicino, Smalley, Wischuk).
I noticed that in the preceding paragraph there is a point about "greenhouses" that appears incomplete. This is sometimes a hint that it was edited down from a talk that had once expanded on the greenhouse illustration. Perhaps someone remembers who gave such a talk?
*** w19 September p. 23 pars. 10-11 “Come to Me, . . . and I Will Refresh You” ***
10 Jesus created a peaceful, inviting environment for his fellow workers, and he enjoyed training them. (Luke 10:1, 19-21) He encouraged his disciples to ask questions, and he wanted to hear their opinions. (Matt. 16:13-16) Much like plants in a greenhouse, the disciples flourished. They absorbed the lessons that Jesus taught and produced fruit in the form of good works.
11 Do you have a position of authority? If so, ask yourself: ‘What kind of environment do I create at work or at home? Do I promote peace? Do I encourage others to ask questions? And am I willing to hear their opinions?’ Never would we want to be like the Pharisees, who resented those who questioned them and persecuted those who expressed an opinion contrary to their own.—Mark 3:1-6; John 9:29-34.
There is no specific reason to reference greenhouses as they are not mentioned in the Bible. There is just as much reason to say above "Much like plants in a fertile, well-watered field, the disciples flourished." The reason to mention a greenhouse is to speak about a closed environment "independent of external circumstances" and independent of "world" conditions. That is not done above, but was the previous use in a 1997 Watchtower:
*** w97 1/1 p. 4 Why Should We All Praise God? ***
It can be cultivated independent of external circumstances, just as plants can grow in a greenhouse whatever the weather is like outside.”
In general, the proofreaders would never question something like this. It's the type of thing that an editorial committee (and/or GB) might question. But only if they were thinking in the mindset of how it might be used against them. When editors are reading it as counsel only for others and not for themselves, it's easy to say things that might sound hypocritical or self-incriminating.
Of course, I prefer the idea that Brother Splane, for example, is using an opportunity to create a more open Society. Perhaps opening up a question or suggestion box on JW.ORG. Perhaps allowing suggestions to be upvoted and downvoted by millions of JWs. 😀  Splane, of course, was the one to make the biggest use of Luke 10 to highlight Jesus' methods of teaching in his Annual Meeting talk in 2014, and this is echoed in paragraph 10.

Never would we want to be like the Pharisees, who resented those who questioned them and persecuted those who expressed an opinion contrary to their own.—Mark 3:1-6; John 9:29-34.
- Watchtower September 2019