JW Insider

it is a fake

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

I apologize if you think it makes me seem intelligent to some. That's not the intention. It's really more like you said here:
Which reminds me that I never actually addressed the idea where you claim that Russell never claimed to be the equivalent of the FDS.
Curiously, this can also be discovered through "what was written" as found in another footnote in the same book I mentioned previously.
The "Divine Purpose" book (dp) makes the following statement on page 63:

But then it unfortunately quotes from that same biography that the WTS supposedly never published. It's even mentioned in the index:

On page 17, a footnote shows how that Biography was published. It was a special addition made to new editions of Studies in the Scriptures, updated in the 1926 edition.

I bring it up because, if we read what was there named, "The Biography of Charles Taze Russell" we find the following:
Thousands of the readers of Pastor Russell’s writings
believe that he filled the office of “that faithful and wise servant,” and that his great
work was giving to the Household of Faith meat in due season. His modesty and
humility precluded him from openly claiming this title, but he admitted as much in
private conversation.
So, if the Watch Tower publications, published by the Governing Body after 1919, are to be believed here, then Russell admitted that he filled the office of "that faithful and wise servant."

I already pointed out that you made the mistake of pointing to a Watch Tower from 1880, when Russell hadn't begun pushing the change that made himself the FDS until 1896 and 1897.
Oddly enough, the Watchtower publications made this same mistake:
*** ka chap. 17 pp. 345-346 pars. 30-31 The “Slave” Who Lived to See the “Sign” ***
This studious Christian took note of Jesus’ illustration of the “faithful and wise servant” (Matthew 24:45, Authorized Version) and published his understanding of it in the Watch Tower issue of November, 1881, page 5. In the fourth- and fifth-last paragraphs of the article “In the Vineyard,” he said:
We believe that every member of this body of Christ is engaged in the blessed work, either directly or indirectly, of giving meat in due season to the household of faith. “Who then is that faithful and wise servant whom his Lord hath made ruler over his household,” to give them meat in due season? Is it not that “little flock” of consecrated servants who are faithfully carrying out their consecration vows—the body of Christ—and is not the whole body individually and collectively, giving the meat in due season to the household of faith—the great company of believers?
Blessed is that servant (the whole body of Christ) whom his Lord when he has come (Gr. elthon) shall find so doing. “Verily, I say unto you, that he shall make him ruler over all his goods.” “He shall inherit all things.”
31 From this it is clearly seen that the editor and publisher of Zion’s Watch Tower disavowed any claim to being individually, in his person, that “faithful and wise servant.” He never did claim to be such.*" However, he did continue to edit the Watch Tower magazine down to the day of his death on October 31, 1916.
Notice how they are using an 1881 Watch Tower and apparently disingenuously implying that "He never did claim to be such" and then immediately "sweeping" away the opposite history down to 1916. But if you look closely, you'll see that there is a little asterisk after the term "He never did claim to be such.*" If you have the original book, or check the WOL.jw.org, or the Watchtower Library CD you can see that this asterisk points to the following:
*** ka chap. 17 The “Slave” Who Lived to See the “Sign” ***
[Footnotes]
See the book The Battle of Armageddon, published in 1897, page 613, under the heading “Dispensing of Food to the Household.—Matt. 24:45-51; Luke 12:42-46.”
If you looked up the footnote, you would have seen that this was the first major place where it was claimed that Jesus would choose a specific, single channel referred to as "he" to dispense "meat in due season" and then compared with the plural "channels" or plural "fellow servants" to be used in bringing the food to the "household." This followed on the previous Watchtower that also showed it no longer referred to a class.
In fact, if you had worked with the proofreaders and researchers at Bethel just prior to this book being rechecked for another printing in 1980 you might have known that this asterisk was a carryover from the book "Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose." Discussing the same subject, that book also quoted the 1881 Watch Tower:

But then notice the next point, which is quite different than the impression given by the "Kingdom Approached" book.

In this case, the earlier book discusses the problems of the cult that had developed around Russell, and discusses how Rutherford wanted to change this. So the footnote above, in this case, was used to show that the proper view was lost sight of, and attention was now "on an individual man.o"  And where did that little footnote point?

It was only beginning in 1897 that Russell began allowing himself to be addressed as "that servant, faithful and wise" (FDS) and referred to as the individual giving out meat in due season (food at the proper time).
The issue of so many persons 'worshiping' Russell was admitted freely in the 1959 book, "Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose." (Their word, "worship," not mine.) But the "Kingdom Approached" book didn't get into that. The much more recent "Proclaimer's" book refers to the problem, too:
*** jv chap. 6 p. 65 A Time of Testing (1914-1918) ***
Others, on account of their deep respect for Brother Russell, seemed more concerned with trying to copy his qualities and develop a sort of cult around him.

Do you have any new orders for me, o wise one, JWI?
Sheesh.

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!

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.

(Matthew 24:34) . . .Truly I say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things happen.
(Matthew 24:1-3) . . .Now as Jesus was departing from the temple, his disciples approached to show him the buildings of the temple. 2 In response he said to them: “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, by no means will a stone be left here upon a stone and not be thrown down.” 3 While he was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples approached him privately, saying: “Tell us, when will these things be. . .
(Mark 13:1-4) . . .As he was going out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him: “Teacher, see! what wonderful stones and buildings!” 2 However, Jesus said to him: “Do you see these great buildings? By no means will a stone be left here upon a stone and not be thrown down.” 3 As he was sitting on the Mount of Olives with the temple in view, Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked him privately: 4 “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are to come to a conclusion?”
(Luke 21:5-7) 5 Later, when some were speaking about the temple, how it was adorned with fine stones and dedicated things, 6 he said: “As for these things that you now see, the days will come when not a stone will be left upon a stone and not be thrown down.” 7 Then they questioned him, saying: “Teacher, when will these things actually be, and what will be the sign when these things are to occur?”
 
 
 

Of course! Everything I write here is opinion. Even the part you evidently agreed with. 😊

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!

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.)

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.

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!

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.)

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.

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.)

(Matthew 24:34) . . .Truly I say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things happen.
(Matthew 24:1-3) . . .Now as Jesus was departing from the temple, his disciples approached to show him the buildings of the temple. 2 In response he said to them: “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, by no means will a stone be left here upon a stone and not be thrown down.” 3 While he was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples approached him privately, saying: “Tell us, when will these things be. . .
(Mark 13:1-4) . . .As he was going out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him: “Teacher, see! what wonderful stones and buildings!” 2 However, Jesus said to him: “Do you see these great buildings? By no means will a stone be left here upon a stone and not be thrown down.” 3 As he was sitting on the Mount of Olives with the temple in view, Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked him privately: 4 “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are to come to a conclusion?”
(Luke 21:5-7) 5 Later, when some were speaking about the temple, how it was adorned with fine stones and dedicated things, 6 he said: “As for these things that you now see, the days will come when not a stone will be left upon a stone and not be thrown down.” 7 Then they questioned him, saying: “Teacher, when will these things actually be, and what will be the sign when these things are to occur?”
 
 
 

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.

The 2001 Watchtower stated this well. But what should we do when a mature Christian still does "advocate or insist on personal opinions or harbor private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding"?
Seriously, I'm sure we've all seen examples of this. What's the best way to handle it? Ignore it? Go to the person privately? Write a letter?
Another article said pretty much the same thing:
*** 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.
 

Your definition provides a clue as to why the Governing Body cannot currently claim to be the "faithful and discreet slave." This does not mean that they are not well-meaning in their goal to participate as a class of faithful and discreet slaves. And this does not mean that they will ultimately fail to live up to their goal.
(1 Timothy 3:1-7) . . .If any man is reaching out for an office of overseer, he is desirous of a fine work. 2 The overseer should therefore be irreprehensible, a husband of one wife, moderate in habits, sound in mind, orderly, hospitable, qualified to teach, 3 not a drunken brawler, not a smiter, but reasonable, not belligerent, not a lover of money, 4 a man presiding over his own household in a fine manner, having children in subjection with all seriousness; 5 (if indeed any man does not know how to preside over his own household, how will he take care of God’s congregation?) 6 not a newly converted man, for fear that he might get puffed up [with pride] and fall into the judgment passed upon the Devil. 7 Moreover, he should also have a fine testimony from people on the outside, in order that he might not fall into reproach and a snare of the Devil.
I suppose that Rutherford might not have qualified, based on some of these criteria, and I think most of us would agree that Hayden Covington was a "newly converted" man, relatively speaking. But I think we have excellent reasons to accept the current Governing Body members as qualified overseers, and they therefore deserve respect, double honor, deference, benefit of the doubt, and our willingness to follow their leading example, and, as we see how their conduct works out, to imitate their faith.

That many of us, perhaps most of us, are aware that there have been cases of disfellowshipping when there were ZERO witnesses. As Anna mentioned, it's true that "circumstantial evidence" can be counted as a "witness." But even this type of "witness" has sometimes been ignored in cases of CSA.

I know of a couple of Witnesses who were both disfellowshipped based on the ZERO-witness policy. Both were very good friends of mine, and were about my age. One never tried to be reinstated, and neither are JWs today.
This was 1976. He was about 19, and was considered a spiritually weak, immature brother who had delayed getting baptized until just that year, and his father wasn't a Witness. He began dating a sister, 18, who had just begun regular pioneering. The gossip was tough on her from the beginning because neither her own family or many others in the congregation thought she should date a young, newly baptized, irregular publisher if she wanted to continue pioneering. He was accused of finally getting baptized just so he could date her.
She worked in a hospital in the city on some kind of "candy striper" program that had turning into an internship, and she had to work til about midnight, and didn't drive, and wanted to stay in the city near the hospital. My parents had sold our country house in 1975 and had just moved into the city to rent, so that my mother could also pioneer. I had already moved to another congregation about 100 miles away where my brother had started a business. So my parents would often give this sister my old room in the rented city house.
One night she stayed overnight with the brother she was dating at his home (when his parents were away). She claimed that they hadn't even gone on a date that night, that nothing happened, and it was just for temporary convenience that she remained there after falling asleep. She normally would have come to our house that night and slept in my old room. He also claimed that nothing had happened. They claimed it was one of those "Wake up little Susie, wake up!" situations after both of them fell asleep.
Well, my parents had already informed her parents that she hadn't come to our house that night.  (This was pre-cell phone days.) Her parents ended up finding out she was at the brother's house at around 5 am. She normally got up early from our house and got a ride home in the daytime.
They were disfellowshipped for fornication, even though both of them denied it. They were obviously not repentant because both of them denied it. She had admitted staying at his house. He was the one who tried to get reinstated. He called me at Bethel the next year to ask about what might be done since he had not realized that he could have appealed it. I visited him on a summer off from Bethel in 1977 and he got reinstated within a few weeks after that. His own father WANTED him to stay disfellowshipped because he thought it would discourage him from going back to the Witnesses. He got reinstated, but was bitter about it. I have no idea if anything actually happened that night, but he (and she) always denied that anything at all happened.

Hmmmm. It's usually easy to identify anyone's remarks here as their opinion, and I have expressed my opinion. If I had said, or "published" as you say, that the city of Sodom must not be destroyed forever in the final judgment and they are therefore coming back in the resurrection, or that only the babies and children killed in the Flood of Noah's day are coming back in the resurrection, then you might immediately recognize that this was an opinion, even if I used Scriptures to back up my opinion. Especially if you recognized that I was using a different set of scriptures than our publications use in order to back up my opinion.
No matter whether I think that something you or Tom or Witness, or John, or Anna or Jack or others might be right or wrong, if I can recognize that it is different from the most recent published presentation in the publications or from the platform, then I know that you or they have formed an opinion, no matter how sure anyone is about that opinion.
But I would expect you (or them) to provide (publish) a reasonable and hopefully scriptural argument for that opinion. And I might expect that the argument could be very good or could very well be flawed. Just as my own opinion might be flawed.
An opinion can very well be in opposition to the majority opinion, or accepted doctrine. My mention of the fact that perhaps thousands might think this way is an acknowledgment of the fact that I have heard these opinions from others too, and I extrapolate because I don't think I'm so unique or special in any way, nor is this congregation.
I think sensitivities to differences on this particular opinion have been weighted by the fact that it is fast becoming the most repeated unique doctrine in the Watchtower study articles. Since 2014, the expressions "faithful slave" and "faithful and discreet slave" have regularly edged out "1914" and "generation" and "Armageddon." In fact, from 2016 to 2018, the date 1919 was used far more in the Watchtower than 1914. I think you can guess why.

Quite the opposite. I stated that I think the GB have a desire to do God's work and to obey God, and that they are worthy of double honor (especially as they work hard in speaking and teaching). They have reached out for the office of overseer, and as the scripture I quoted states, they are therefore desirous of a fine work. This is their goal, as I stated:
Somehow you decided that this means they are not worthy?
My concern was that a few of these men, evidently, have also succumbed to some ideas, based on doctrinal traditions that have been handed down to us since at least Rutherford's time. Those traditions include trying to maneuver 1914 into Jesus' parables even when it becomes clear that it won't work. They have therefore cornered themselves into making a declaration of their own righteousness and faithfulness in a presumptuous manner rather than faithfully and discreetly waiting upon Jesus to make that judgment.
This is just a false step that our brothers have taken, presumably before they were aware of it. Many Witnesses have noticed this. I would assume that thousands have noticed this and are therefore concerned. In fact, I now think that the GB themselves are aware of this doctrinal conundrum and have begun trying to extricate themselves. The first step is admitting that it is presumptuous to declare a specific group or class as Jehovah's "sole channel." Then admitting that many of the doctrines through the years have been false, and that even current doctrines and procedures are subject to error.  And if we are aware of a false step, our responsibility is to say something.
*** od p. 193 Part 2 Jehovah’s Righteous Requirements ***
25. In addition to confessing his own sins, each person has what responsibility regarding serious wrongdoing by others that could threaten the spiritual or moral cleanness of the congregation?
“If someone sins because he has heard a public call to testify and he is a witness or has seen or learned about it and he does not report it, then he will answer for his error.”—Lev. 5:1.