JW Insider

No. I voluntarily stepped down years ago primarily over the college issue (going to and sending my children to college). It's not mandatory to step down, by the way. Although some congregations might see it this way. I'm fine how things are. (I spend time on sites like this and I have trouble with a couple of doctrines.) I don't think any current elder would be on a site like this and admit their specific issues with any doctrines. I have no idea who the administrators or moderators or Librarian is.
Within weeks of starting at Brooklyn Bethel in 1976 I was assigned to the Art Department. I was really only an average artist (good at landscapes, lousy at portraits). I had lots of small projects, but only a couple of the big ones. So I always volunteered for any research assignments, which I really loved. (e.g., What did an anvil look like in the first century? What armor and weapons would a Philistine have? What did a rich man's house look like? What did a poor man's house look like?" What did a 1st century fishing boat look like?) 
This soon turned into a couple of requests from ONE member of the GB who asked me if I would look up information for some of his projects. This turned into a lot of research projects. I continued working for him until 1982.
But anyone, could be assigned to work directly with members of the GB. Bethel assignments seemed a lot more random than most people realize. You don't have to be qualified to get a good assignment, and people who were very qualified for a specific assignment often got something completely different. Bethel leadership was actually quite proud of this method of assignment and Sydlik often made the point to new personnel that a brilliant scientist might be assigned to clean toilets. It was a method of teaching humility. (In reality I never saw anything like that, although menial assignments would be given to some as punishment/humiliation. There were only a couple of these punishments going on while I was there. Seemed to be pretty rare.)

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.
 

As far as I am concerned, this sign represents a win-win. It does not make me mad. It is doing me a favor. If anyone doesn’t want to talk to me, then I don’t want to talk to them.
There is a squirrelly assumption that underpins this meme: that Jehovah’s Witnesses are determined to talk to each householder no matter what, and are incredibly frustrated if stymied. It plays into the infantile view that they are “recruiting,” a view popularly spread by “anti-cultists” who obsess over all the ways that people can “manipulate” others. They abhor all forms of “brainwashing” except for the brainwashing that is theirs, as they safeguard mainstream values—values that have not worked out very well insofar as promoting overall peace and well-being. If the mainstream thinking contained answers to the vexing questions of life, people would’t have to worry for one second about “sects” and even “cults”—they would be rejected out of hand.
So are Jehovah’s Witnesses “recruiting?” 
“I am going to ask you to convert,” I told a certain householder, “but it is not going to happen until the 100th call—and what are the chances It will go on for so long? In the meantime, it is just conversation.” To householders who state they have their own religion or spirituality and who decline conversation on that basis I say, “Well, I’m not going to ask you to change, and if I do, you can say No.” I mean, it is fine to decline conversation—more people do than do not—but just not on that basis. You might say it to an evangelical Christian—the sort that actually do feature instant conversion of the “Come down and be saved!” variety. You might say it to a Moonie, because their people are known to disappear off the surface of the globe, only to reappear selling flowers in robes. But you ought not say it to one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, whose members live and work in the general community.
No, the sign does me a favor. I have no problem with it. It might be different if they proliferated so that they became a commonplace gag sign, just a fad witticism inspired by late-night TV that didn’t necessarily mean anything. In that case, I might just walk away or I might playfully attempt to negotiate terms before deciding if I wanted to enter into such a “contract.” “Well, a guy has to serve the Lord,” I will say non-aggresively to some while trying to size them up. You’ve got to have a sense of humor.
Like a No Soliciting sign, there are no legal consequences to blowing past it, and like a No Soliciting sign, it doesn’t necessarily mean anything. It might be put up by a previous owner, and the current one sees no reason to remove it. It might be put up by a family member that died. It might have been put up after those pushy people selling vacuum cleaners left. It might be put up in the heat of election campaign season. It might be put up to dissuade Jehovah’s Witnesses, but I do not assume that is the case.
”I saw your sign and was a little concerned that you might think it applies to me,” I sometimes say when one of them is staring me in the face. “It doesn’t—but you might think it does.” You can assess by the response if the householder had that intention or not, and if he did, I have no problem moving on from what would cause both of us stress. Don’t argue, “We’re not soliciting,” because it really doesn’t matter whether you are or not. What matters is what the householder thinks you are doing. Of course, you can tell him that what he thinks is wrong, but that is never a fine foundation for a visit, is it?
I have said at times, when my attention is directed to such a sign, “Oh. Well....I’ll make sure not to do that, then,” either by soliciting money (which Witnesses never do) or soliciting opinions—drawing people out—which we do. Simply tell them stuff, don’t ask them a thing—that is enough to technically comply with such a sign. But the trick is not to be like Alan and argue over technicalities. The trick is to see if such and such a vague sign actually means anything to the householder and respect his wishes if it does. 
No, a No Soliciting sign means nothing legally, same as this new $50 per hour JW sign that Jack is giggling about means nothing. The only sign with legal consequences (in the US) is a No Trespassing sign, and even that only has legal consequences for individual dwellings—you can’t wall off an entire community with a No Trespassing sign. To be sure, some are trying to change that, but the idea of answering for large swaths of other people is repugnant to most and so the change may not readily happen.
Let’s face, this sign is kind of crude, and not too many people are going to put one up. It is sort of like that sign in which you find yourself as though staring down the barrel of a gun that says, “Never mind the dog! Beware of the owner!” I don’t just jauntily breeze by that sign as though is was a Welcome mat. I tread a bit cautiously. If my companion was to turn around and leave, I wouldn’t blame him a bit. Still, you never know. I was leaving one such home—no one had answered—and as I was walking away, a pickup truck drove in with a gun rack in the back window. “Great!” I muttered to myself—“probably a real sorehead here!” He turned out to be the nicest guy in the world—very respectful of our purpose and of the Bible. There was a lot of crime in the neighborhood and he had just “weaponed-up” for the protection of his family.
These signs are not a red light—No Soliciting, Beware of Whatever—but they certainly are a yellow light. They are not a yellow light legally, but they are a yellow light in that they might reveal something of the householders wishes, and I have no problem always complying with their wishes once I know what they are.
As it is, Jehovah’s Witnesses have a method to keep note of those who have emphatically said that the don’t want JW calls ever. It is an imperfect system and I usually forget to consult it, but it works better than nothing. Ironically, it may all vanish one day if the current “data-keeping” laws gathering steam in Europe, spearheaded by the same people who see “manipulation” everywhere, spreads to the US. It will be illegal to keep track of who doesn’t want a call. As it is, one US brother I know reported on a trip to Europe and how the brothers there were wrestling with these new anti data-gathering laws that had never been intended (at least, by most) for them, but were being applied to them, with: “Good! They’ve just made your job easier! Preach to one and all and don’t worry about any “records”—keeping track of them is a pain in the neck!”
What about a child answering the door? For me, that depends upon the age of the child. For a teen, sometimes I will go Bible-lite, such as commenting on what the words of the Lord’s Prayer literally mean, and I do not press any point. Or show a video geared to teens—I have never had a teen not pay rapt attention to the video, “Be Social-Network Smart.” With teens, I have sometimes told them that I really don’t know what to do with teens, because they are learning and gathering smarts, but they are also under their parent’s roof, and the latter is guiding that process, and so they may or may not want them speaking to persons of different beliefs at the door, and ‘which is it with them’? 
Even that doesn’t guarantee anything. One parent that I finally encountered said, “I don’t appreciate you speaking to my children,”—I had done so twice and had shown a couple of videos. I responded that I had never been looking for the kids—I had been looking for her—and that when the teens had answered I had asked them whether their parents would want them speaking to a visitor about religion and they had said she would not care. “Kids will say anything!” she told me. So I explained that I would not call again (she said ‘thank you’), repeated that I had never been looking for them in the first place, and even was able to give a brief synopsis for why we call at all—she became quite pleasant.
Another teen—I had just finished something brief and similar—he had been home alone. As I left, the mother drove up in the driveway. I told her who I was, that I had spent a few minutes speaking with her son, I had asked him a question and he had answered intelligently. “You should be proud of him,” I said as I took my leave.
Cultures are different. I once handed a tract to a child with directions to give it to her parents, and upon leaving, my companion said that she would have witnessed to the child. My companion was newly arrived from South America where it is nothing for parents to allow and even encourage children to talk religion to anyone calling about it. There are congregations there heavily populated by children with the full blessing of parents who do not attend themselves—respect for God runs deep in some lands and the assumption is that you cannot go wrong allowing your children to learn about the Bible.
Though the following has nothing to do with the Bible, it has everything to do with that fact that cultures are different, and so when the GB speaks in a way that is not really my cup of tea, I say, “It is probably one of those others cultures that they are taking into consideration.”
There is a large community of deaf persons in Rochester NY. Accordingly, there are a number of Witnesses who make their living as translators. One of them told me of a certain deaf family of two adults and two children—all deaf—who are known not only locally but also nationally, and the following story is told nationally as a way of highlighting the challenges of catering to different cultures: 
A neighboring “hearing” girl would come over to play at the home of the deaf family. The two children were surprised that she didn’t seem able to sign very well at all, but they all managed to sign well enough to each other to get by. Then the two children went to the little girl’s home to play, where they saw the mother not signing at all! Her mouth kept moving, and the little girl seemed satisfied with that, but there was no signing. Upon returning home, they related their bewilderment to their parents and asked, “Are there other people like that?”
 

Witnesses have never actually taught pacifism. So using violence in our own self-defense or in the defense of our loved ones is not forbidden. But taking sides in a nationalistic war is surely being a part of the world, and its desires. Christianity is based on the premise that very few will actually try to be true to all the loving principles highlighted in the Bible. Christianity finally fulfills the most important parts of the Law, including "you must not kill." But since true Christians are in a minority, there will always be plenty of less faithful Christians (and others) to fight these wars.
Let's say that India wants to go to war with Australia. True Christians, I expect, would hardly be a factor. India's military would lose no more than 1 percent of their potential defense to true Christians, and Australia would lose no more than 1 percent. This is absolutely no factor at all in the outcome of the war. (Which would no doubt become a proxy war for the largest superpowers who will ally themselves with each side anyway.)

JW organization consider self to be Christians. I would suggest, if you don't mind, to reconsider what is or should be basic in Jesus'teachings. I guess how main foundation of Christianity and therefore for JW's, can be found in two famous verses as Jesus' respond or answer on question: Which is greatest command? 
Love should be main teaching, main doctrine of religion that want prove self as to be "only true". Why? Because "knowledge" as product of Bible interpretations that makes distinctions between various religions, and constant tries to prove how member of another church is wrong about some issue, will not help no one.
Religious "knowledge" brings people to problems. "True knowledge" or "Error knowledge" or "Brighter knowledge" or "Clarified knowledge" and so on .... But knowledge puffs up while love builds up. - 1 Cor 8
 
34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” - John 13
All our talking and litanies and outwitting (outsmarting) is vain work. What will count is how we treat each other, and not how smart we can be to win in discussion.  :)))
 
One of main positive way how to love people around you is not going to war for reasons because of many wars are started, for sure, but it is also  crucial to defend people who are under attack. How to accomplish these two?

I do the same.. You will notice that I do have my own opinions on some things.... which comes from meditation......  .  I  will of course not go and teach this to others.  I teach the basic core teachings to my studies and help them to appreciate that they must do self study for maturity...  I also prepare them for their time as a witness when they will see that everyone is not perfect....... they may even bump their toe on a rock below the surface of the love-feasts..
Most new witnesses face a test with fellow witnesses after baptism -  or a new congregations - it is inevitable..... just depends on how big the test is.  I also help them to get life-skills as a witness.  Some did not learn this while at home or had too many bumps in life.  The qualities to survive and the attitudes that assist in cooperating with others and being kind and fitting in.
The realit y is: we are social animals and want to fit in , be successful in the group and it is hard on some people- especially if one has some weird personality quirks..... Navigating life - no matter where you go - is hard.  For us the workplace can be a specially hard because people expect us to be "better" than others...... when we are just ordinary people like everyone else..... The only difference is that we try to be faithful to god........ to the best of our very imperfect ability. Sometimes we must face ridicule for that...so as ordinary people we have to build up courage and work on our social skills to navigate out of difficult situations.
I have a very friendly personality and stand out easily..... as a woman this is not always a good thing.  So I have learnt to be smart and gauge the right time to say what I think.  Last year I went to see two Arabic brothers and spoke to them about their attitudes towards women..... because Arabs have an inbred attitude which the truth does not completely correct.... years and years of training in a certain way is not just going to disappear.  I waited for the right time and managed to do it successfully....   did they take my concerns to heart?   I do not know....  but I seemed to do OK afterward.  As I grew older I learnt to not keep quiet about my concerns....... but wait for a long time until the time is right and then talk.  Every time I was successful, I grew in maturity.  Now I help the young sisters to also grow strong and become pillars in the congregation. 
 

We are encouraged by GB to think about things (meditate/ analyze) .  Our maturity in spiritual things depend on ourselves - the organization cannot teach us  this. 

I have nothing to "evade" about it. Bible clearly named, count this specific matter, that David was soldier and killed many people, and how this is reason why God didn't want him to build Temple. 
I just want to put in focus, how that factor (killing many people) must not be obstacle for your good relation to God and His blessings on such person. By the way, from who came commands and encouraging to be in so many combats and killing people? From his God. Many battles had been for God and in the name of God. Of course, some personal interest sometimes came in David head and he done what he wish to do (Uriah for example)
On other hand some angels or even God's Son were and will participate in massive bloodshed (Noah Flood,  Assyrian soldiers,  Armageddon, post 1000 year Kingdom Day of last Test), but that will not disqualified Him to be Priest and King and many more, to build Spiritual Temple in greater scale than it is now.
I really don't see why we have to be tied with some verse with few words, while entire Bible giving few other perspectives on same issue. 

I'm sure it's been pointed out under the many prior 1975 topics in this forum.
The fact that the prediction was for the 1970's, not 1975 is easily seen from the articles called, for example, "What Will the 1970's Bring?" and the Circuit Assembly badges we wore that asked: "Who Will Conquer the World in the 1970's?"
The reason for 1970's instead of 1975 was because of articles and talks that made the following points:
*** Watchtower 1968 August 15 p. 499 par. 30 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? ***
30 Are we to assume from this study that the battle of Armageddon will be all over by the autumn of 1975, and the long-looked-for thousand-year reign of Christ will begin by then? Possibly, but we wait to see how closely the seventh thousand-year period of man’s existence coincides with the sabbathlike thousand-year reign of Christ.  . . . It does not necessarily mean that 1975 marks the end of the first 6,000 years of Jehovah’s seventh creative “day.” Why not? Because after his creation Adam lived some time during the “sixth day,” which unknown amount of time would need to be subtracted from Adam’s 930 years, to determine when the sixth seven-thousand-year period or “day” ended, and how long Adam lived into the “seventh day.” And yet the end of that sixth creative “day” could end within the same Gregorian calendar year of Adam’s creation. It may involve only a difference of weeks or months, not years.
If that difference between the end of six thousand years since Adam, and the end of the "sixth day" could not be a matter of years, then this means that it must be less than two years from the autumn of 1975. After the autumn of 1977 it would have become a matter of years, not just months.
Then, especially after the 1970's, the focus of the prediction moved to a time before the year 2000:
The Nations Shall Know That I Am Jehovah p. 216
"Shortly, within our twentieth century, the "battle in the day of Jehovah" will begin against the modern antitype of Jerusalem, Christendom."
Watchtower 1984 Mar 1 pp.18-19
"Some of that "generation" could survive until the end of the century. But there are many indications that "the end" is much closer than that!"
"Let Your Kingdom Come" (1981) p.102
"But now in our 20th century, we have come to the time for harvest  "a conclusion of a system of things, and the reapers are angels"!"
Watchtower 1989 Jan 1 p.12
"He was laying a foundation for a work that would be completed in our 20th century."
 

No. I voluntarily stepped down years ago primarily over the college issue (going to and sending my children to college). It's not mandatory to step down, by the way. Although some congregations might see it this way. I'm fine how things are. (I spend time on sites like this and I have trouble with a couple of doctrines.) I don't think any current elder would be on a site like this and admit their specific issues with any doctrines. I have no idea who the administrators or moderators or Librarian is.
Within weeks of starting at Brooklyn Bethel in 1976 I was assigned to the Art Department. I was really only an average artist (good at landscapes, lousy at portraits). I had lots of small projects, but only a couple of the big ones. So I always volunteered for any research assignments, which I really loved. (e.g., What did an anvil look like in the first century? What armor and weapons would a Philistine have? What did a rich man's house look like? What did a poor man's house look like?" What did a 1st century fishing boat look like?) 
This soon turned into a couple of requests from ONE member of the GB who asked me if I would look up information for some of his projects. This turned into a lot of research projects. I continued working for him until 1982.
But anyone, could be assigned to work directly with members of the GB. Bethel assignments seemed a lot more random than most people realize. You don't have to be qualified to get a good assignment, and people who were very qualified for a specific assignment often got something completely different. Bethel leadership was actually quite proud of this method of assignment and Sydlik often made the point to new personnel that a brilliant scientist might be assigned to clean toilets. It was a method of teaching humility. (In reality I never saw anything like that, although menial assignments would be given to some as punishment/humiliation. There were only a couple of these punishments going on while I was there. Seemed to be pretty rare.)

My detective skills are being criticized and some unkind ones are doing the same with my writing skills. One unkind person even said, “Don’t quit your day job.”
Just to be on the safe side, I have resolved to keep my position as head of the glass department for Tesla Motors.

No. I voluntarily stepped down years ago primarily over the college issue (going to and sending my children to college). It's not mandatory to step down, by the way. Although some congregations might see it this way. I'm fine how things are. (I spend time on sites like this and I have trouble with a couple of doctrines.) I don't think any current elder would be on a site like this and admit their specific issues with any doctrines. I have no idea who the administrators or moderators or Librarian is.
Within weeks of starting at Brooklyn Bethel in 1976 I was assigned to the Art Department. I was really only an average artist (good at landscapes, lousy at portraits). I had lots of small projects, but only a couple of the big ones. So I always volunteered for any research assignments, which I really loved. (e.g., What did an anvil look like in the first century? What armor and weapons would a Philistine have? What did a rich man's house look like? What did a poor man's house look like?" What did a 1st century fishing boat look like?) 
This soon turned into a couple of requests from ONE member of the GB who asked me if I would look up information for some of his projects. This turned into a lot of research projects. I continued working for him until 1982.
But anyone, could be assigned to work directly with members of the GB. Bethel assignments seemed a lot more random than most people realize. You don't have to be qualified to get a good assignment, and people who were very qualified for a specific assignment often got something completely different. Bethel leadership was actually quite proud of this method of assignment and Sydlik often made the point to new personnel that a brilliant scientist might be assigned to clean toilets. It was a method of teaching humility. (In reality I never saw anything like that, although menial assignments would be given to some as punishment/humiliation. There were only a couple of these punishments going on while I was there. Seemed to be pretty rare.)

No. I voluntarily stepped down years ago primarily over the college issue (going to and sending my children to college). It's not mandatory to step down, by the way. Although some congregations might see it this way. I'm fine how things are. (I spend time on sites like this and I have trouble with a couple of doctrines.) I don't think any current elder would be on a site like this and admit their specific issues with any doctrines. I have no idea who the administrators or moderators or Librarian is.
Within weeks of starting at Brooklyn Bethel in 1976 I was assigned to the Art Department. I was really only an average artist (good at landscapes, lousy at portraits). I had lots of small projects, but only a couple of the big ones. So I always volunteered for any research assignments, which I really loved. (e.g., What did an anvil look like in the first century? What armor and weapons would a Philistine have? What did a rich man's house look like? What did a poor man's house look like?" What did a 1st century fishing boat look like?) 
This soon turned into a couple of requests from ONE member of the GB who asked me if I would look up information for some of his projects. This turned into a lot of research projects. I continued working for him until 1982.
But anyone, could be assigned to work directly with members of the GB. Bethel assignments seemed a lot more random than most people realize. You don't have to be qualified to get a good assignment, and people who were very qualified for a specific assignment often got something completely different. Bethel leadership was actually quite proud of this method of assignment and Sydlik often made the point to new personnel that a brilliant scientist might be assigned to clean toilets. It was a method of teaching humility. (In reality I never saw anything like that, although menial assignments would be given to some as punishment/humiliation. There were only a couple of these punishments going on while I was there. Seemed to be pretty rare.)

That was too easy. I think it's a trap!

To be fair to AlanF, I can understand how people can misinterpret (and feel duped, in AlanF's case) regarding how the holy spirit actually operates. There have been various insinuations in publications throughout the years, (mainly early years) and personal speculation to boot. There are still some friends who believe holy spirit went out and found them a mate.

Of course that all people in one group contributing how that environment will look like. Article made point, with given example about individual who are in position of authority, how people with authority are very important in this and how develop of many things is based on platform that people in authority creating (or has been creating). They are some sort of pillars and members will look on them and how they respond on various stimuli inside and from outside congregation.  I think how this is message in article how main responsibility, what sort of environment took place, is on elders. 
Congregation is not understand as private place for games, but serious place for service .... and sometimes for cowboy dancing or musical show too. But that is rare. What is we talking about is, how much you can go with your different idea, view, opinion and when they will and how stop you in your open voice. Your different idea about and rejecting "overlapping generation", even without your active promoting that on others, can be viewed as your weak faith, law spirituality because of "worldly pressure" you going through, negative thoughts, the appearance of doubt ...etc. In their's "arsenal", elders can find reason to put increased attention to you, or even to silently warn others about your weakness. Of course you know your elders better than me, but they are "shepherds" and have to keep you inside "flock". :)) 

Good point Srecko. I don't think it's entirely fair to blame the GB for creating a "certain" environment inside congregations though.
In fact, (we know everything passes through the GB's hands for approval, if they haven't written it themselves) the above expressions must be what the GB agree with. Time and again I see that it is not the questions that are asked, or even expressing an opinion contrary to their own, but it's the way this is done and what is the the purpose for doing it. Most elders are willing to hear an opinion, and do not resent those who express an opinion contrary to their own. I know that from personal experience. However, if the motive is to exult your own ideas, to force people to listen to them over and over again, and to try and make people see it your way, then that is stirring up contentions and is eroding peace in the congregation. And those who erode peace, will eventually find themselves kicked out sooner or later. Just to illustrate; I told a few elders, in no uncertain terms, that I cannot agree with the "overlapping generation" idea, and I left it at that. No one has ever come after me, or tried to convince me otherwise, and we all remain good friends. Now you know what would happen if I started to aggressively push my opinion on every single person I came into contact with.
In another instance; I rattled one sister's cage (it means irritated her) during a discussion in the car during field service (in the US a car load of friends go out). We were all talking about animals being friends in the paradise. I voiced my opinion that I believe there will still be the same food chain as there is now, with carnivores consuming the herbivores. I explained why I think that, but this one sister was adamant that lions will eat grass and will be buddies with the sheep. But we didn't argue who is right and who is wrong. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, as long as you are not trying to beat the other person over the head with it. 
So I think it is assumed that 'questioning and expressing an opinion' will be done in a civil way, to which those in a position of authority should have no trouble listening.
 
 

CC, I understand how you think it "protects" the Governing Body's reputation if you don't allow any discussion of their past errors from before 1931, or even 1933, or even 1943, or even from before 1950. You stretch the truth here, but I understand your motive of trying to protect their reputation.
But you are really trying to protect them in such a way that we get a completely different view of them than truth, history, and reality offers us. I've always thought that cover-ups of any kind are dishonest, even if the motive seems praiseworthy.
In fact, the history of the Governing Body as the Faithful Slave, according to our CURRENT view, now goes back to 1919. They removed Russell from his membership in the exclusive committee, so I'll agree that discussing Russell's failings is not so relevant, even if it is important to show how easy it is for men to follow men. The last thing I'll say on that score (about Russell) is that the Watchtower NOW says that about 5,000 International Bible Students were active in 1914, and about 4,000 were active in 1919. In late 1916, it was admitted that THOUSANDS of Bible Students considered him to be, as a single individual, the entire "Faithful and Discreet Slave." This included Joseph Rutherford himself, and according to A H MacMillan, all the rest of the 'governing body' of that time, too. Rutherford even complained that Russell was being WORSHIPED, even though he was just another human, another creature. The Faith on the March book, Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose book, and the  Proclaimers book admits that there was a CULT of WORSHIP around Russell.
It's true that love does not keep account of the injury. But trying to cover up their past errors is therefore not an act of love. Love believes ALL things that are true, it does not hide the truth. Love shines through even when it "bears" and "endures" all these true things. Perhaps it's easy to forget the final part of this passage:
(1 Corinthians 13:4-7) 4 Love . . .  does not brag, does not get puffed up, 5 . . .  does not look for its own interests, does not become provoked. It does not keep account of the injury. 6 It does not rejoice over unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth. 7 It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
Notice, that this point is made even clearer in 2 Corinthians:
(2 Corinthians 6:6-8) . . .by love free from hypocrisy, 7 by truthful speech, by God’s power; through the weapons of righteousness in the right hand and in the left, 8 through glory and dishonor, through bad report and good report.. . .

In Croatian are some different rules about uppercase and lowercase letters in these sort of two words names, titles. Because of this, I wasn't careful enough about what it would mean in the English language. Croatian WT magazines are translated with small letter for word "Witnesses" in name JW.
When I connected the past and the present and all those various people who showed themselves to be "witnesses" for JHVH in some specific way, then that meant continuity. Not only or not at all the continuity of a legal entity - an organization, but the existence of a type of people, as individuals and as groups. That is something how JW organization and WT Society, as legal entities, looking on themselves ...as continuation, as heirs of true faith, as witnesses for JHVH, from the time of the all faithful man of old and old patriarchs. 
 
In that sense, a legacy that the WT Society draws from Bible Students of Russell (teaching, doctrines, ideas, beliefs, administration) legally belongs to today's JW as facts that created and been cause for future "destiny" of those who continued the work of founders in 19th century. In such way of logic, all Russell's teaching and belief system, later abandoned, stay as real history of this, today existed JW organization. Museums halls that exists in worldwide Betel's buildings (Branch Offices) proves this. JW of today are proud of their history and beginnings in 19th century (not before, because Bible pictures of faithful men and Israel nation is heritage that many other religions want to appropriate for themselves too). By publicly showing and talking and writing about that in such way, JW accepting all what was said (teachings) before 1931 as own spiritual heritage that must to be carry today (as sort of burden).    

If he hung his head, it was not in shame. It was in dismay at the literalism.
He was probably wondering, “How did this fellow ever get past ‘I and the father are one’ to become a Witness in the first place?
He was probably wondering, “How did this fellow ever come to believe in God?” since the cosmonauts traveled through the heavens and didn’t see him.
Lord, save us from the literalists.
By definition, you cannot get to see spiritual things. It is the wind that blows where it will and you hear the sound of it but cannot otherwise nail it down. (John 3:8)
In the ministry, I will not argue with a trinitarian (having learned from experience). I say, “95% of the scriptures that are said to prove the trinity would, if they were seen in any other context, be instantly dismissed as figure of speech.” Yet somehow grown persons make themselves children when they see them in the Bible, and insist: “The Bible SAYS what it MEANS and MEANS what it SAYS.” I simply cannot play that game. I don’t want to prove that “crocodile tears” does not mean the crying person is a crocodile. I don’t want to have to produce the bush after I have told someone not to beat around it. I don’t want to explain to a grown-up that there is no Santa Claus.
I have never had this problem at all of demanding just HOW elders are appointed by holy spirit. Jesus said (above) that it can’t be done. It is enough to say that appointees are measured against the Bible template, which is an acknowledged product of holy spirit, the measuring is done by existing elders, and is cleared by HQ, where presumably there is a file cabinet stuffed with holy spirit.
I do note, however—I mean it clicks together just now—a possible reason for that last letter from the circuit overseer. “I have appointed” so-and-so as an elder in the congregation, he said. It is a tactic to stay one step ahead of the scoundrels who are adept at “framing mischief by decree” to make clear that, contrary to their insistence that they are fighting a “corporation,” what they are actually fighting is the Bible itself, and to the extent that the Bible is God’s Word, which we believe that it is, God himself. Verses directly say that traveling ministers appointed elders. Frame it the same way today so that they must redirect their attack against scripture itself and thereby reveal exactly what is their desire. Many changed wordings and announcements likely come about for the same reason, causing JTR to rant about “legal machinations,” but it cannot be any other way, because attacks are often framed legally.
After changing the wording, then say, as did G Jackson, “the Bible says that there will be such and such, and we are doing our best to fulfill that pattern.” Surely THAT should not be illegal.
(What he said was: “Jesus said that in the last days - and Jehovah's Witnesses believe these are the last  days - there would be a slave, a group of persons who would have responsibility to care for the spiritual food. So in that respect, we view ourselves as trying to fulfill that role")
Davey the Kid, from the final chapter of Tom Irregardless and Me, is a real person, immensely capable, who served several years at Bethel. He died a few years back, so perhaps I could give his last name, but then some sorehead here will produce evidence that he farted once and will start a thread about that. Davey related that, while at Bethel, visitors would tour and some would say that they could feel holy spirit in the hallways. You cannot literally feel holy spirit in the hallways, Davey said, as he went on to discuss just how holy spirit can be expected to back those who do God’s will, as they do in a focused way at Bethel. 
I can picture 99 persons in the audience—who had said they felt holy spirit in the hallways—smiling at themselves that they ever thought they could literally feel holy spirit in the hallways, and AlanF stomping out of the building now that they have admitted to LYING to him for all these years.

Right. Don't ever make a mistake like this:
*** w09 3/15 p. 16 par. 4 “Be Vigilant” ***
Since 1925, Jehovah’s Witnesses have recognized that World War I and the events that followed amount to sure evidence that Christ’s presence in heavenly Kingdom power began in 1914.
*** w01 11/1 p. 25 “Religious Tolerance Day” ***
Jehovah’s Witnesses have used various methods to spread the good news. For example, in 1914—during the era of silent movies—the Witnesses were showing the “Photo-Drama of Creation,” a motion picture and slide presentation that included synchronized sound.
*** w98 9/15 p. 32 The War That Destroyed the 19th Century ***
For over 120 years, Jehovah’s Witnesses have pointed to 1914 as the end of what Jesus called “the appointed times of the nations.”
*** w93 5/1 p. 12 par. 7 Shedding Light on Christ’s Presence ***
True to the prophecy, Jehovah’s Witnesses, the modern light bearers, have suffered persecution for the past eight decades.
*** w91 4/1 p. 7 Is It Later Than You Think? ***
Since 1914, however, Jehovah’s Witnesses have done that, in spite of the persecution Jesus foretold—government bans, mob violence, imprisonments, torture, and many deaths.
In 1919 there were 4,000 of Jehovah’s Witnesses preaching this good news.
[8 decades from 1993 reaches back to the decade from 1910 to 1920]
*** w91 4/1 p. 5 Is It Later Than You Think? ***
In 1914, World War I started. Jehovah’s Witnesses of that decade were immediately on the alert.
*** w91 4/15 p. 6 When Will Lasting Peace Really Come? ***
For more than 70 years, Jehovah’s Witnesses have been proclaiming around the world the good news that Jesus Christ began to rule in God’s Kingdom in heaven in the year 1914.
And speaking of poor history, this last quote is saying that Jehovah's Witnesses began proclaiming this date for Jesus' rule as early as 1921 or before. The idea is that it was being taught in 1919, but this was not a clear teaching until about 1925.

I certainly do not think you need to say it, or act like him, or act different from him. For me, it's helpful to try to remember the things that were his greatest concerns, in case you are him. When TTH said you had been DF'd by the elders, I hadn't remembered anything like that about you here, and just thought we shouldn't be quick to judge. If you are JB, I'm glad you're back. There is probably some kind of catharsis that people can get out of these forums. Or perhaps its a way to clear our own thought and logic processes by putting ideas out here for people to respond to. If a persons wants to be here, then they are finding something useful here. I'm all for temporary cool-down periods if things get heaterd, but I don't like the idea that a person gets "banned for life." Especially not people who are looking for a way to find association again with people that once shared a faith or ideology. It doesn't matter if they are critical, as far as I am concerned. I like a challenge.

Two things wrong with that:
1. In English, all those people in the past who worship Jehovah, were not Jehovah's Witnesses; they were Jehovah's witnesses. Note the smaller "w."
*** w58 4/15 p. 230 par. 11 A New Song for All Men of Good Will ***
God’s first prophecy through a man came through Enoch, the seventh man in line from Adam. Enoch was a man of faith in Jehovah God and so became Jehovah’s witness.
There is some ambiguity in such statements made before the 1970's, where the upper-case W wasn't used, even when referring to the modern-day religion of Jehovah's witnesses, except in quotes from others, or in titles, where such words are often capitalzed. Although it was funny looking at the bound volumes of court cases in the Writing Dept library where the titles embossed onto the books included the term "J.w.'s" not "J.W.'s"
2. The actual statements will sometimes make claims that "Jehovah's Witnesses" (uppercase "W") taught a certain thing before, during, or shortly after 1914 that they didn't teach. For example, more than 70 years before 1991, they were still teaching that Jesus had become king in 1878, not 1914.
 
 
 
Just above this quote from you I took my own post and started highlighting at the "WT" in "WT have logic how" and continued selecting the text down to the word "that." When the "Quote Selection" option showed up, I clicked it and got the quote within a quote above. Of course, if the quoted portion takes up more than about 4 or 5 lines, the quoted portion will include a "Read More" option. Most of yours do that anyway.

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. - WT study article September 2019, page 23 par 11
"What kind of environment" do GB create inside JW Organization aka congregations ?

Right. Don't ever make a mistake like this:
*** w09 3/15 p. 16 par. 4 “Be Vigilant” ***
Since 1925, Jehovah’s Witnesses have recognized that World War I and the events that followed amount to sure evidence that Christ’s presence in heavenly Kingdom power began in 1914.
*** w01 11/1 p. 25 “Religious Tolerance Day” ***
Jehovah’s Witnesses have used various methods to spread the good news. For example, in 1914—during the era of silent movies—the Witnesses were showing the “Photo-Drama of Creation,” a motion picture and slide presentation that included synchronized sound.
*** w98 9/15 p. 32 The War That Destroyed the 19th Century ***
For over 120 years, Jehovah’s Witnesses have pointed to 1914 as the end of what Jesus called “the appointed times of the nations.”
*** w93 5/1 p. 12 par. 7 Shedding Light on Christ’s Presence ***
True to the prophecy, Jehovah’s Witnesses, the modern light bearers, have suffered persecution for the past eight decades.
*** w91 4/1 p. 7 Is It Later Than You Think? ***
Since 1914, however, Jehovah’s Witnesses have done that, in spite of the persecution Jesus foretold—government bans, mob violence, imprisonments, torture, and many deaths.
In 1919 there were 4,000 of Jehovah’s Witnesses preaching this good news.
[8 decades from 1993 reaches back to the decade from 1910 to 1920]
*** w91 4/1 p. 5 Is It Later Than You Think? ***
In 1914, World War I started. Jehovah’s Witnesses of that decade were immediately on the alert.
*** w91 4/15 p. 6 When Will Lasting Peace Really Come? ***
For more than 70 years, Jehovah’s Witnesses have been proclaiming around the world the good news that Jesus Christ began to rule in God’s Kingdom in heaven in the year 1914.
And speaking of poor history, this last quote is saying that Jehovah's Witnesses began proclaiming this date for Jesus' rule as early as 1921 or before. The idea is that it was being taught in 1919, but this was not a clear teaching until about 1925.