JW Insider

I have always deferred to you whenever you showed evidence that I was wrong and you were right. And, assuming I am right about your past avatars, this has actually happened more than once.
What I am still saying is that I am willing to accept where the Biblical evidence leads. And most of the time it leads me support the Watchtower. You have already seen this many times, but those areas where I support the Watchtower hold no interest to you. The biggest discussions always ensue over those areas  where the Biblical evidence leads away from the Watchtower's traditional views. These are for the most part chronology-related, or doctrines that we ended up getting locked into, because of our chronology doctrines (generation, etc.).
I have been very clear that I'm sure the Bible does not support our chronology teachings. I can now say that I have no doubts about this. The pseudo-archaeology we have used to try to get "outside" support for our chronology is undoubtedly also against the WT view, and it also happens to support the Bible's view. But I'm more interested in what the Bible itself says about our chronology doctrines.
I am 100 percent in agreement with our teachings on Soul, Trinity, Paradise Earth, War, Neutrality, Elders, Smoking/Recreational Drugs/Alcohol, Morals, Pagan Roots of Worldly Holidays, Meetings, Our Ministry, using God's Name, the Ransom, Jehovah's Sovereignty, His Eternal Purpose, and probably hundreds more specific understandings of scriptures that vary from the way that most of Christendom understands them.
Also, it doesn't "suit me" to contradict the Watchtower in those areas where the Bible evidence leads away from certain traditional teachings we have not broken free from yet. These differences sometimes result in painful realizations. Sometimes it's the realization that many are suffering (or have suffered) unnecessarily. The difference in the way certain young brothers are now treated in several countries where they were once told not to accept any kind of alternative service when their conscience would have allowed it is an example. We now know that there have been literally hundreds or even thousands of abused Witness children for whom any kind of justice was made difficult due to a policy that put the reputation of the organization first. 
Any difference between my own views and those of the Watchtower must always be based on Biblical evidence, prayer, meditation, conscience, reasonableness, and always FIRST giving the benefit of any doubt to the elder men who publish our teachings in the publications and through approved representatives. This way, if I find there are areas of doctrine I can no longer support in good conscience, it is no longer based on any doubt or conflict. There are also certain areas where I am still trying to follow the Bible's counsel to "make sure of all things." Those areas where I am "making sure" I am also willing to discuss here. And I'm happy to hear any Bible evidence you have that is appropriate.

Brazen sounds a bit archaic, and can sometimes offer ambiguity if persons are familiar with another meaning of brazen, such as the ONLY definition (made of brass) that it had in the previous NWT. In the Appendix of the NWT Reference Bible (1984):
*** Rbi8 p. 1575 4D “Tartarus” ***
In Job 41:31, 32 (41:23, 24, LXX) we read concerning Leviathan: “He makes the deep boil like a brazen caldron; . . . "
But it's not a terrible translation, as it really was used in Greek with reference to "brazen hussies." (shameless hussies, and wanton hussies - and brazen hustlers, too, for that matter.) Literally, it meant people who were not so moral as those good folks up in the town of Selge, Pisidia, Asia Minor. It's much better than the old translation in the NWT (loose conduct) which was actually a mistranslation because it implied lesser moral infractions of a more general variety.
Note Thayer's:
ἀσέλγεια, -ας, ἡ, the conduct and character of one who is ἀσελγής (a word which some suppose to be compounded of the α privative and Σέλγη, the name of a city in Pisidia whose citizens excelled in strictness of morals [so Etym. Magn. 152, 38; per contra cf. Suidas 603 d.]: others of α intensive and σαλαγεῖν, to disturb, raise a din; others, and now the majority, of α privative and σέλγω equivalent to θέλγω, not affecting pleasantly, exciting disgust), unbridled lust, excess, licentiousness, lasciviousness, wantonness, outrageousness, shamelessness, insolence:Mark 7:22 (where it is uncertain what particular vice is spoken of); of gluttony and venery, Jude 1:4; plural, 1 Peter 4:3; 2 Peter 2:2 (for Rec. ἀπωλείαις), 2 Peter 2:18; of carnality, lasciviousness: 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 4:19; 2 Peter 2:7; plural "wanton (acts or) manners, as filthy words, indecent bodily movements, unchaste handling of males and females, etc." (Fritzsche), Romans 13:13. (In Biblical Greek besides only in Wis. 14:26 and 3 Macc. 2:26. Among Greek writings used by Plato, Isocrates and following; at length by Plutarch [Lucull. 38] and Lucian [dial. meretr. 6] of the wantonness of women [Lob. ad Phryn., p. 184 n.].) Cf. Tittmann i., p. 151f; [especially Trench, § xvi.].
I took 4 years of Hebrew in College (7 semesters) and learned a bit of Greek at Bethel. Still an amateur, of course, but learned enough to know that the NWT is actually an excellent translation with only a few verses where bias has created areas for further study. Most of its "mis-translations," in my opinion, do not necessarily add false informaiton, just interpreted information. Most of the time I'd say the interpreted information is quite likely true, just unnecessary for a pure translation.
Personally, I find both the 1984 and 2013 NWT to be very good, even the simpler revised version. But I couldn't do without an Interlinear. There was more consistency in the old NWT, and where words were added there were usually brackets around them. You have to really know a more literal translation well, for the Revised NWT to also be as useful. And, for the present, most JWs have a good knowledge of the NWT (more literal) and the NWT Revised, which puts them in pretty good shape. A simpler, easier to read version, is better for grasping the context, and a literal translation is better for study. We have them both, plus an excellent Interlinear (KIT).
I might have a few minor complaints with the NWT, but I have hundreds more with the KJV, RSV, and ASV. There are a few things I like better about the Jerusalem Bible and the RSV, but it doesn't matter so much any more. We all have the ability to check all kinds of good Bible language resources online, and dozens of parallel Bibles online for comparison.

Yes, it does, and the verse seems pretty convincing.  You quoted the verse inside the Watchtower quote. I'm repeating it here for reference:
Sometime after the attack of Gog begins, all the remaining anointed ones on earth will be taken to heaven. Then Revelation 17:14 tells us about the reaction in heaven  to Gog’s attack. The enemies of God’s people “will battle with the Lamb, but because he is Lord of lords and King of kings, the Lamb will conquer them. Also, those with him who are called and chosen and faithful will do so.” Thus, Jesus, together with his 144,000 anointed kings in heaven, will rescue God’s people here on earth.
17 That rescue will result in the battle of Armageddon, which will bring glory to Jehovah’s holy name....................
You probably have heard people say that you shouldn't create a doctrine that is based on only ONE SINGLE Bible verse, especially if that verse is only found in a book like Revelation where symbolic, literal, past, future, present and prophetic references are commonly juxtaposed.
But there is another thing about this particular verse in Revelation 17:14. It's not translated correctly in the NWT. An additional meaning is added to it, to try to make it clearer to understand. That "meaning" might be correct, but it's commentary and interpretation, not translation. When an assumption requiring interpretation is required to make sense of a specific wording then a translation should make a note somewhere (through brackets or footnotes) that it was added.
The Greek here very clearly (and simply) says the following
" . . . but because he is Lord of lords and King of kings, the Lamb will conquer them. Also, those with him, called and chosen and faithful.”
". . . καὶ [and] οἱ [those] μετ’ [with] αὐτοῦ [him] κλητοὶ [called] καὶ [and] ἐκλεκτοὶ [chosen] καὶ [and] πιστοί [faithful]."
The Greek "with" could mean they are "WITH HIM" in the sense of being on his side, or even (rarely) WITH HIM in the sense of being "AFTER" him, but this would be unlikely in context. The best translations don't try to add meaning, but just go with what it says, even if the meaning is not immediately clear. For example, the CEV says:
"But he will defeat them, because he is Lord over all lords and King over all kings. His followers are chosen and special and faithful." (Rev. 17:14, CEV)
Of course, even here, the phrase "WITH HIM" was interpreted to limit it to the specific sense of "FOLLOWERS" but this is just as likely as a translation that requires the repeating of a verb action that isn't even found, such as by adding: "will do so." [NWT]
But even by adding the interpretation "will do so" doesn't necessarily tie it back to mean they will BATTLE with him. To me, the most likely meaning, and the very reason for the kind of vagueness about specific action, is because the phrase ties back to the idea that they CONQUER with him, just in a different sense from "battling." It reminds me of a similar verse in Revelation that I'll get to in a minute.
At any rate, there are several ways to make sense of this verse without the implication that humans raised to heaven will battle the enemies of God's people from heaven. It seems likely to me (but not definitive) that the main idea is not about the TIMING of when these chosen ones are in heaven during that particular BATTLE, but every sense will imply the fact that these are ones who are on the same SIDE as Jesus Christ, and very likely that these chosen ones are ALSO conquerors over God's enemies, and therefore are reward to share in the "crown" as kings (not just priests). There is another sense of these chosen ones battling God's enemies in Revelation 11, and through certain plagues on God's enemies that they (the chosen ones) are involved with:
(Revelation 11:3-12) . . .I will cause my two witnesses to prophesy . . . .5 If anyone wants to harm them, fire comes out of their mouths and consumes their enemies. If anyone should want to harm them, this is how he must be killed. [probably meaning that their own words, or their own "weapons" will be turned against them.] 6 These have the authority to shut up the sky so that no rain may fall during the days of their prophesying, and they have authority over the waters to turn them into blood and to strike the earth with every sort of plague as often as they wish. 7 When they have finished their witnessing, the wild beast that ascends out of the abyss will wage war with them and conquer them and kill them. 8 . . . 11 After the three and a half days, spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood on their feet, and great fear fell upon those who saw them. 12 And they heard a loud voice from heaven say to them: “Come up here.” And they went up into heaven in the cloud, and their enemies saw them.
and:
(Revelation 13:7) . . .It was permitted to wage war with the holy ones and conquer them, and it was given authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation.
Nearly all of this is symbolic of course, but the idea is that the chosen witnesses (and those they represent, we can assume) PARTICIPATED in the conquering through their faithfulness, and were thus key actors in the battle against those enemies.
To the one who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.’
(Revelation 2:7) . . .To the one who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.’ (Revelation 2:11) . . .The one who conquers will by no means be harmed by the second death.’ (Revelation 2:17) . . .To the one who conquers I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white pebble, and written on the pebble is a new name that no one knows except the one receiving it.’ (Revelation 2:26, 27) . . .And to the one who conquers and observes my deeds down to the end, I will give authority over the nations, 27 and he will shepherd the people with an iron rod so that they will be broken to pieces like clay vessels, just as I have received from my Father. This last one is more closely related to the interpretation that the NWT gives to Rev 17:14. Rev 2:27 indicates that "he" refers to each of the chosen/anointed who have conquered on earth will gain authority in heaven to shepherd the nations with an iron rod, just as Jesus does. But just how literal this is we can't say, because it may even refer to the authority to keep the peace for 1,000 years during, perhaps even referring to the entire period, up to the time at the END of the thousand year reign, when the nations gather together again:
(Revelation 20:7-10) . . .Now as soon as the 1,000 years have ended, Satan will be released from his prison, 8 and he will go out to mislead those nations in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Maʹgog, to gather them together for the war. The number of these is as the sand of the sea. 9 And they advanced over the whole earth and encircled the camp of the holy ones and the beloved city. But fire came down out of heaven and consumed them. 10 And the Devil who was misleading them was hurled into the lake of fire and sulfur, where both the wild beast and the false prophet already were; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
Of course, there is another way to read Revelation 20 which avoids the idea that it merely an unlikely repeat of the Armageddon as depicted in Revelation 16, but this time a thousand years later. That "other way" solves some problems and creates some problems. This other method is quite radical, but if accepted the NWT would not have to add those parentheses around Revelation 20:5. It would make more sense as originally found in the Greek without the additions.
I'm sure that didn't really answer your question, not directly anyway. So I'll just repeat that the judgment in Matthew 25 need not be a specific point in time that we call the "Judgment Day" but it makes sense either way. (Back when I was baptized, we were still teaching that the great tribulation had started in 1914.) I think the focus is on the final Judgment Day, similar to the wheat and weeds at the time when the bundles are separated for burning or glorification.
(Matthew 25:31) . . .“When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit down on his glorious throne. . .
We once thought that was 1914, but many of the ideas we associated with 1914 have now been seen to make no sense scripturally:
*** w13 7/15 p. 8 par. 19 “Tell Us, When Will These Things Be?” ***
19 In review, what have we learned? In the beginning of this article, we raised three “when” questions. We first considered that the great tribulation did not begin in 1914 but will start when the United Nations attacks Babylon the Great. Then, we reviewed why Jesus’ judgment of the sheep and the goats did not begin in 1914 but will occur during the great tribulation. Finally, we examined why Jesus’ arrival to appoint the faithful slave over all his belongings did not occur in 1919 but will take place during the great tribulation. So, then, all three “whens” apply to the same future time period—the great tribulation. How does this adjusted view further affect our understanding of the illustration of the faithful slave? Also, how does it affect our understanding of other parables, or illustrations, of Jesus that are being fulfilled during this time of the end? These important questions will be considered in the following articles.
Your reference to Mt 24:22 was initially the primary reason that the great tribulation was seen as starting in 1914, but after nearly shutting down the WTS, it was seen as a relief in 1918/1919 when the days of that tribulation were stopped, giving the WTS a chance to regroup and grow.
In terms of the chosen ones, it would seem to indicate what I said above, that the BATTLE against God's enemies is going on while there were still chosen ones on earth needing protection from the ones causing tribulation.
(2 Thessalonians 1:6-10) . . .This takes into account that it is righteous on God’s part to repay tribulation to those who make tribulation for you. 7 But you who suffer tribulation will be given relief along with us at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels 8 in a flaming fire, as he brings vengeance on those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus. 9 These very ones will undergo the judicial punishment of everlasting destruction from before the Lord and from the glory of his strength, 10 at the time when he comes to be glorified in connection with his holy ones and to be regarded in that day with wonder among all those who exercised faith, because the witness we gave met with faith among you. It could also be interpreted, based on this and Revelation, that these ones causing tribulation will temporarily conquer all the chosen ones through death, but the verses about the "harpazo" (rapture) show that not all would die. Of course, the recent tendency in explaining all these verses tends to minimize the importance of 1914, but that's another topic. 
 

Paul specifically mentions Peter as coming to Antioch and being clearly in the wrong when Peter "feared those of the circumcised class." But look who sent those men of the circumcised class:
(Galatians 2:11, 12) . . .However, when Ceʹphas came to Antioch, I resisted him face-to-face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12 For before certain men from James arrived, he used to eat with people of the nations; but when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcised class.
It was specifically because these men had such a "superfine" reputation as the leaders in Jerusalem that Paul went to the trouble of saying that "even if it were an angel from heaven declaring a different good news" they should CURSE that angel.
(Galatians 1:7-9) . . .Not that there is another good news; but there are certain ones who are causing you trouble and wanting to distort the good news about the Christ. 8 However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond the good news we declared to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, I now say again, Whoever is declaring to you as good news something beyond what you accepted, let him be accursed.
The focus was on "whoever" even if that "whoever" turned out to be "we" -- the persons the Galatians would have trusted, even an APOSTLE like Paul himself --  or even an ANGEL. Well what was considered the closest thing to an ANGEL for the congregations in that day? 
I think we know that the most likely persons were the apostles at Jerusalem who were actively trying to Judaize or the apostles who knew better but allowed their own peers at Jerusalem to influence them to Judaize. Why else would Paul immediately try to distance himself from these very apostles? Why would he immediately follow this up by showing how he distanced himself from any supposed authority or teachings coming out of Jerusalem?
(Galatians 1:10-2:7) . . .Is it, in fact, men I am now trying to persuade or God? Or am I trying to please men? . . . the good news I declared to you is not of human origin; 12 for neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it was through a revelation by Jesus Christ. . . . 15 But when God . . . thought good 16 to reveal his Son through me so that I might declare the good news about him to the nations, I did not immediately consult with any human; 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before I was, but I went to Arabia, and then I returned to Damascus. 18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to visit Ceʹphas, and I stayed with him for 15 days. 19 But I did not see any of the other apostles, only James the brother of the Lord. 20 Now regarding the things I am writing you, I assure you before God that I am not lying. . . . 22 But I was personally unknown to the congregations of Ju·deʹa. . . . 2 Then after 14 years I again went up to Jerusalem with Barʹna·bas, also taking Titus along with me. . . . 3 Nevertheless, not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, although he was a Greek. 4 But that matter came up because of the false brothers brought in quietly, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we enjoy in union with Christ Jesus, so that they might completely enslave us; 5 we did not yield in submission to them, no, not for a moment, so that the truth of the good news might continue with you. 6 But regarding those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me, for God does not go by a man’s outward appearance—those highly regarded men imparted nothing new to me. 7 On the contrary,. . .
Why do we think that Paul tries to show that he never had much interaction at all with Jerusalem, and the "supposed" pillars there? Why is it important that he say he did NOT go up to Jerusalem "to those were apostles" but ran off to Arabia instead? Even after three years he only just spent two weeks in Jerusalem staying with Peter, and he happened to see James while he was there -- but NONE of the other apostles?
What is the main point here that he wants the Galatians to be sure they remember he is not lying about? It can only be that he must do his best to smash this myth that Jerusalem is the seat of some kind of authority they should accept. These Galatians are complying with Judaizers, the same problem in Antioch, because they thought that Jerusalem had authority to impose such doctrines on them. So Paul makes it clear that even when he was right there in Jerusalem, that they were not compelled to follow the Judaizers, and the "false brothers" in Jerusalem who wanted to enslave them back into aspects of Jewish law, the most obtrusive of which was "circumcision" - which Paul also utilized as a key expression to summarize the entire egregious idea of being put under law. 
You can see that here when circumcision is expanded to mean any kind of placement under law:
(Galatians 4:1-11) . . .9 But now that you have come to know God or, rather, have come to be known by God, how is it that you are turning back again to the weak and beggarly elementary things and want to slave for them over again? 10 You are scrupulously observing days and months and seasons and years. 11 I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you.
But it also included putting themselves under stewards and supervisors. Now that they were no longer under law, they should understand that they are all sons and heirs, and have no reason to go back under human stewards and supervisors. This might refer back to Paul's comments about the supposed "pillars" at Jerusalem, whose authority he didn't accept.
(Galatians 4:1-11) . . .Now I say that as long as the heir is a young child, he is no different from a slave, although he is the lord of all things, 2 but he is under supervisors and stewards until the day set ahead of time by his father. 3 Likewise, we too, when we were children, were enslaved by the elementary things of the world. 4 But when the full limit of the time arrived, God sent his Son, who was born of a woman and who was under law, 5 that he might release by purchase those under law, so that we might receive the adoption as sons. 6 Now because you are sons, God has sent the spirit of his Son into our hearts, and it cries out: “Abba, Father!” 7 So you are no longer a slave but a son; and if a son, then you are also an heir through God. 8 Nevertheless, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those who are not really gods. 9 But now that you have come to know God or, rather, have come to be known by God, how is it that you are turning back again to the weak and beggarly elementary things and want to slave for them over again?
I think we can take from this that even where the supposed pillars and supervisors (governing bodies) and stewards are faithful and give us good instruction and a good example to follow, that we never should accept that "authority" is coming from them. It should never be the Governing Body we think of them as persons to "obey." Except in the sense of following good examples that their experience has proven to be worthwhile to imitate. Just as we do should do for any elders taking the lead.
(Hebrews 13:7-17) 7 Remember those who are taking the lead among you, who have spoken the word of God to you, and as you contemplate how their conduct turns out, imitate their faith. 8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, and forever. 9 Do not be led astray by various and strange teachings, for it is better for the heart to be strengthened by undeserved kindness than by foods, which do not benefit those occupied with them. . . . 16 Moreover, do not forget to do good and to share what you have with others, for God is well-pleased with such sacrifices. 17 Be obedient to those who are taking the lead among you and be submissive, for they are keeping watch over you as those who will render an account, so that they may do this with joy and not with sighing, for this would be damaging to you.
Those who think their changing teachings are "food" forget that Jesus is the same, unchanging, and it is undeserved kindness that is much more important than various and strange teachings. Therefore, the ones taking the lead that we are obedient to, are not ones where we feel we must be obedient to any specific teachings. We are obedient to their concerns and counsel about our CONDUCT to the extent that we respect how their own conduct and faith has turned out. This probably sounds like heresy to those who can't get over the idea that we need to be OBEDIENT to the teachings of the Governing Body, or even OBEDIENT the teachings of faithful stewards. We are actually obedient to the counsel of those who are concerned about our Christian conduct, and if we can see that this counsel conforms to their own good example. The real spiritual "food," where we should get our motivation and energy, is our response to Christ's "undeserved kindness." Our "will" should be to Jehovah's will, and find good leading examples that can help us do his will. That should be the motive. God has given us the greatest example of doing good for us, so we wish to also "do good and share what we have with others." These are the good works and conduct that should also be the "meat" of our meetings:
(Hebrews 10:24, 25) 24 And let us consider one another so as to incite to love and fine works, 25 not forsaking our meeting together, as some have the custom, but encouraging one another, . . .
Considering (remembering/comtemplating) one another so as to incite (lead/motivate) to love and fine works. This is the reason for meeting together and encouraging one another.

No. Certainly not! They were Judaizers. So he said they "seemed to be pillars."
(Galatians 2:6-9) . . .But regarding those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me, for God does not go by a man’s outward appearance—those highly regarded men imparted nothing new to me. 7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the good news for those who are uncircumcised, just as Peter had been for those who are circumcised— 8 for the one who empowered Peter for an apostleship to those who are circumcised also empowered me for those who are of the nations— 9 and when they recognized the undeserved kindness that was given me, James and Ceʹphas and John, the ones who seemed to be pillars, gave Barʹna·bas and me the right hand of fellowship, . . .

That's how I had always read it, too. But there is also a strong possibility that he really means that he wanted to be sure that everything he was doing was not being undone by these superfine apostles from Jerusalem (like James, Peter, and John). James and Peter had influence outside of Jerusalem, obviously all the way up to Galatia, where James sent people to undermine Paul's work, and Peter actually visited himself and ended up setting a bad example for the brothers, there.
Under another topic you already responded to some of these points, but I'll pick up on them again here.
Remember, too, that Peter was a big influence in Corinth, too, so that some were saying they belonged to Paul, Apollos, or Cephas. Paul drops several hints even in Corinthians that the superfine apostles included the "James gang" and others from the "Jerusalem party."  It was easy for the Corinthians to see these apostles appointed by Jesus as a kind of Governing Body representing themselves as THE (superfine) FAITHFUL STEWARD. So Paul made a point to them that he was not a steward that needed such a human "tribunal."
(1 Corinthians 4:1-3) . . .A man should regard us as attendants of Christ and stewards of God’s sacred secrets. 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.. . .
It's also pretty clear that Paul is speaking of this same tribunal that he speaks of in Galatians. Even the timing is set for us.
(2 Corinthians 12:1, 2) . . .I have to boast. It is not beneficial, but I will move on to supernatural visions and revelations of the Lord. 2 I know a man in union with Christ who, 14 years ago—whether in the body or out of the body, I do not know; God knows—was caught away to the third heaven. (Galatians 2:1, 2) . . .Then after 14 years I again went up to Jerusalem with Barʹna·bas, also taking Titus along with me. 2 I went up as a result of a revelation,. . .

YEAH!
I had not realized to what extent Paul went to to completely avoid any interaction with the Jerusalem Apostles, AKA the "Governing Body.!
I THINK THIS IS IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO SAVE THIS WHOLE PAGE FROM THE TOP, , TO KEEP IT IN CONTEXT, SO I MADE A .JPG, WHICH IF YOU FEEL SO INCLINED, YOU CAN DOWNLOAD.

Paul specifically mentions Peter as coming to Antioch and being clearly in the wrong when Peter "feared those of the circumcised class." But look who sent those men of the circumcised class:
(Galatians 2:11, 12) . . .However, when Ceʹphas came to Antioch, I resisted him face-to-face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12 For before certain men from James arrived, he used to eat with people of the nations; but when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcised class.
It was specifically because these men had such a "superfine" reputation as the leaders in Jerusalem that Paul went to the trouble of saying that "even if it were an angel from heaven declaring a different good news" they should CURSE that angel.
(Galatians 1:7-9) . . .Not that there is another good news; but there are certain ones who are causing you trouble and wanting to distort the good news about the Christ. 8 However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond the good news we declared to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, I now say again, Whoever is declaring to you as good news something beyond what you accepted, let him be accursed.
The focus was on "whoever" even if that "whoever" turned out to be "we" -- the persons the Galatians would have trusted, even an APOSTLE like Paul himself --  or even an ANGEL. Well what was considered the closest thing to an ANGEL for the congregations in that day? 
I think we know that the most likely persons were the apostles at Jerusalem who were actively trying to Judaize or the apostles who knew better but allowed their own peers at Jerusalem to influence them to Judaize. Why else would Paul immediately try to distance himself from these very apostles? Why would he immediately follow this up by showing how he distanced himself from any supposed authority or teachings coming out of Jerusalem?
(Galatians 1:10-2:7) . . .Is it, in fact, men I am now trying to persuade or God? Or am I trying to please men? . . . the good news I declared to you is not of human origin; 12 for neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it was through a revelation by Jesus Christ. . . . 15 But when God . . . thought good 16 to reveal his Son through me so that I might declare the good news about him to the nations, I did not immediately consult with any human; 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before I was, but I went to Arabia, and then I returned to Damascus. 18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to visit Ceʹphas, and I stayed with him for 15 days. 19 But I did not see any of the other apostles, only James the brother of the Lord. 20 Now regarding the things I am writing you, I assure you before God that I am not lying. . . . 22 But I was personally unknown to the congregations of Ju·deʹa. . . . 2 Then after 14 years I again went up to Jerusalem with Barʹna·bas, also taking Titus along with me. . . . 3 Nevertheless, not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, although he was a Greek. 4 But that matter came up because of the false brothers brought in quietly, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we enjoy in union with Christ Jesus, so that they might completely enslave us; 5 we did not yield in submission to them, no, not for a moment, so that the truth of the good news might continue with you. 6 But regarding those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me, for God does not go by a man’s outward appearance—those highly regarded men imparted nothing new to me. 7 On the contrary,. . .
Why do we think that Paul tries to show that he never had much interaction at all with Jerusalem, and the "supposed" pillars there? Why is it important that he say he did NOT go up to Jerusalem "to those were apostles" but ran off to Arabia instead? Even after three years he only just spent two weeks in Jerusalem staying with Peter, and he happened to see James while he was there -- but NONE of the other apostles?
What is the main point here that he wants the Galatians to be sure they remember he is not lying about? It can only be that he must do his best to smash this myth that Jerusalem is the seat of some kind of authority they should accept. These Galatians are complying with Judaizers, the same problem in Antioch, because they thought that Jerusalem had authority to impose such doctrines on them. So Paul makes it clear that even when he was right there in Jerusalem, that they were not compelled to follow the Judaizers, and the "false brothers" in Jerusalem who wanted to enslave them back into aspects of Jewish law, the most obtrusive of which was "circumcision" - which Paul also utilized as a key expression to summarize the entire egregious idea of being put under law. 
You can see that here when circumcision is expanded to mean any kind of placement under law:
(Galatians 4:1-11) . . .9 But now that you have come to know God or, rather, have come to be known by God, how is it that you are turning back again to the weak and beggarly elementary things and want to slave for them over again? 10 You are scrupulously observing days and months and seasons and years. 11 I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you.
But it also included putting themselves under stewards and supervisors. Now that they were no longer under law, they should understand that they are all sons and heirs, and have no reason to go back under human stewards and supervisors. This might refer back to Paul's comments about the supposed "pillars" at Jerusalem, whose authority he didn't accept.
(Galatians 4:1-11) . . .Now I say that as long as the heir is a young child, he is no different from a slave, although he is the lord of all things, 2 but he is under supervisors and stewards until the day set ahead of time by his father. 3 Likewise, we too, when we were children, were enslaved by the elementary things of the world. 4 But when the full limit of the time arrived, God sent his Son, who was born of a woman and who was under law, 5 that he might release by purchase those under law, so that we might receive the adoption as sons. 6 Now because you are sons, God has sent the spirit of his Son into our hearts, and it cries out: “Abba, Father!” 7 So you are no longer a slave but a son; and if a son, then you are also an heir through God. 8 Nevertheless, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those who are not really gods. 9 But now that you have come to know God or, rather, have come to be known by God, how is it that you are turning back again to the weak and beggarly elementary things and want to slave for them over again?
I think we can take from this that even where the supposed pillars and supervisors (governing bodies) and stewards are faithful and give us good instruction and a good example to follow, that we never should accept that "authority" is coming from them. It should never be the Governing Body we think of them as persons to "obey." Except in the sense of following good examples that their experience has proven to be worthwhile to imitate. Just as we do should do for any elders taking the lead.
(Hebrews 13:7-17) 7 Remember those who are taking the lead among you, who have spoken the word of God to you, and as you contemplate how their conduct turns out, imitate their faith. 8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, and forever. 9 Do not be led astray by various and strange teachings, for it is better for the heart to be strengthened by undeserved kindness than by foods, which do not benefit those occupied with them. . . . 16 Moreover, do not forget to do good and to share what you have with others, for God is well-pleased with such sacrifices. 17 Be obedient to those who are taking the lead among you and be submissive, for they are keeping watch over you as those who will render an account, so that they may do this with joy and not with sighing, for this would be damaging to you.
Those who think their changing teachings are "food" forget that Jesus is the same, unchanging, and it is undeserved kindness that is much more important than various and strange teachings. Therefore, the ones taking the lead that we are obedient to, are not ones where we feel we must be obedient to any specific teachings. We are obedient to their concerns and counsel about our CONDUCT to the extent that we respect how their own conduct and faith has turned out. This probably sounds like heresy to those who can't get over the idea that we need to be OBEDIENT to the teachings of the Governing Body, or even OBEDIENT the teachings of faithful stewards. We are actually obedient to the counsel of those who are concerned about our Christian conduct, and if we can see that this counsel conforms to their own good example. The real spiritual "food," where we should get our motivation and energy, is our response to Christ's "undeserved kindness." Our "will" should be to Jehovah's will, and find good leading examples that can help us do his will. That should be the motive. God has given us the greatest example of doing good for us, so we wish to also "do good and share what we have with others." These are the good works and conduct that should also be the "meat" of our meetings:
(Hebrews 10:24, 25) 24 And let us consider one another so as to incite to love and fine works, 25 not forsaking our meeting together, as some have the custom, but encouraging one another, . . .
Considering (remembering/comtemplating) one another so as to incite (lead/motivate) to love and fine works. This is the reason for meeting together and encouraging one another.

You are wrong again. But that is not unusual. You have a terrible track record when you make such assumptions. I accept and appreciate the many scholarly opinions that support the accuracy and value of the NWT. I do not even support all the opinions of those scholarly works that I referenced. In many cases their opinions about the accuracy or inaccuracy of certain passages are colored by their own theological bias.
I didn't state this. Again, you completely make up things that I supposedly stated. As you can see I stated nothing like this and nothing even related to this. And furthermore I don't believe it's a problem to revise based on newly found evidence. Why would anyone?

work alongside people we don't necessarily trust. Children do it all the time. Some people say Look at those children playing together', but when you look closely you will see children playing alongside each other. Each child is doing their own thing.   
The secret is not to get emotional about it. Life can be very practical. Being retired I can choose what I do and when I do it. My wife chooses what she will do and when she will do it. Sometimes we choose to go places together. We share the housework. She cooks I wash up. She visits her mum and the children, i work on the cars and do the garden :) 
None of it involves trust or love. It is just practical living. 
As for people outside, I have no need to trust anyone, I'm quite independent at the moment.  Mixing with people does not involve trust. I go to auctions to view and sometimes buy,  i converse with the staff and others there but it does not involve trust. 
Think deeply for a while, how many things truly involve trust? Most things in life are just practical or natural things. 

When @JW Insider reveals a matter that would otherwise remain confidential, do you rush straight to your keyboard and tell your 900 friends?
And when you do, do you spin it as I have seen you spin it so many times before? He makes clear that he regards as a rare occurrence whatever he reveals, and you spin it as though it is business as usual among Jehovah’s Witnesses?
On your Facebook page, do you also post the background that you have bravely posted  here, background that accounts for your extreme sensitivity on the subject:
It doesn’t disqualify you from speaking. A victim statement is these days considered an essential part—even the highlight—of any trial. Did you make it when the opportunity was ripe? Did your testimony send school and/or government perpetrators  to jail? I hope you had that opportunity and I hope you came to enjoy some sense of justice because of it.
I also hope it is the case that you were not denied that opportunity/justice somehow, and so you are taking it out on people that have nothing whatsoever to do with your tragic past.
At any rate, it is a serious question. Just as a professional can be expected to display their credentials, do you display your ‘credentials’ that give you a special sensitivity to the crime? Do you also make clear that your hair-trigger sensitivity on this issue has nothing to do with Jehovah’s Witnesses?

For several years I worked for the same company, and when I moved into 787 7th Avenue, I had my first corner office on the 40th floor. An incredible view of Central Park and the Hudson River. The building is over 50 stories, and they used to have a company subsidized restaurant with several chefs to accommodate staff meetings and high profile clients on the top floor. I could get fantastic meals and make appointments with friends and family to come on up and show off our "Windows on the World" private restaurant. Then a French company bought our company out for a few billion, and all those expensive (and wasteful) perks disappeared, but I got to keep my nice corner office for a few more years.
So I'm retired now, and haven't been in the building for a while, except to pass through the marble lobby as a scenic shortcut, and check out an art museum they still keep in it.
But today, a helicopter crash-landed on the roof, and it killed the pilot. It also started a fire and a full evacuation ensued. They say it took half-an-hour just to get down from the 29th floor, so I can imagine what it would have been like from the 40th or 50th. It must have felt like 9/11 to some of them.
https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/manhattan-helicopter-crash-june-2019/index.html

Then you are right back to the points you were making with Outta Here about whether "spirit-directed" means the same as "inspired."
This is a big topic to explore:
It would be easy to imagine that the two words mean the same thing. We wouldn't be surprised at all if we looked up "inspired" in any dictionary and found one of the definitions to be "directed by the Holy Spirit" and perhaps another to be "directed by evil spirits." In fact the expression "borne along by holy spirit" in the Bible means inspired. Some translations say "carried along by Holy Spirit." The NWT now says:
(2 Peter 1:21) . . .For prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were moved by holy spirit.
The word translated "moved" refers to "being driven" (in fact the German word fuhren, to drive or to be conducted, is allied with the Greek word phero used here). If you conduct something, like a cow through a field, you are directing that cow. If you are blowing wind into the sails of a toy boat, you are driving or conducting or directing that boat. So being moved by holy spirit means being spirit directed, and here, it also means inspired.
In our definitions among JWs, we treat the idea of spirit and holy spirit a lot more passively than the NT does.  We no longer say that a specific person is spirit directed. Only that the organization as a whole is spirit directed.
There was a time when "we" (Bible Students and early Jehovah's Witnesses) might even say that Russell or Rutherford was spirit directed. But we didn't stop there. We even thought that Russell was himself spirit directing the Society after he died. (Therefore he could even write a book post-humously and be considered the author, even though only about half of what was in there was actually based on his own earlier writings.) A woman could be spirit-directed in writing a book supposedly directed by one of the fallen angels who came down before the Flood of Noah's day. With a few corrections, her book could be re-packaged, promoted and sold through the Watch Tower Society. Just a few years ago Brother Herd from the Governing Body recommended the book as interesting reading after he found it in the Bethel Library.
A politician in England who agreed with Rutherford could be considered to be have the spirit of the Old Testament prophets, and be a prophet just like Rutherford was considered to be. There was no shame in stating that Rutherford had the spirit of the Old Testament prophets. There was no shame in stating that Russell was the "angel of the church of Laodicea" the "seventh messenger" of Revelation, and that he was personally the "faithful and wise servant" who provided food to the domestics at the proper time.
Then, in Rutherford's day, there were those "flashes of light" in Jehovah's temple. Not always considered to have been from Holy Spirit, but at least considered to have been directed from angels. We considered "1935" and the new understanding of the "great multitude" (great crowd) to be one of those flashes of light in God's holy temple, and we considered the new understanding that the "higher powers"/"superior authorities" were no longer the secular authorities to be another of those "flashes of light." But then we changed our view on the latter "flash" completely (180 degrees), and changed many of our views on 1935 too.
The Watchtower publications have explicitly stated that they do not feel that the translation (NWT) is inspired. But (and this is mostly for John and Billy) the Watchtower has found scholarly support for the translation in general. See here for example:
https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/new-world-translation-accurate/
 

Pillargate?

@JW Insider  Quote "Those who have seen the evil in people up close and personally may actually have a keener "intuitive" sense of potential evil. Or perhaps that "intuitive" sense has been destroyed for the same reasons. I have no idea, so I am not trying to answer John directly on this topic."
In a nutshell. I suffered 3½ years of sexual abuse, physical abuse and emotional abuse in a Children's Home, from age 13 to 16½. It was suffer and keep quiet, or be moved into an Approved School, which i was assured was 10 times worse.  We didn't have sex education back then so i was very nieve, and I was under the 'care' of the council (local government) so could not just walk away from it. I could not report it to the police as they were all part of the same system and i would have been 'moved'.  

I have always deferred to you whenever you showed evidence that I was wrong and you were right. And, assuming I am right about your past avatars, this has actually happened more than once.
What I am still saying is that I am willing to accept where the Biblical evidence leads. And most of the time it leads me support the Watchtower. You have already seen this many times, but those areas where I support the Watchtower hold no interest to you. The biggest discussions always ensue over those areas  where the Biblical evidence leads away from the Watchtower's traditional views. These are for the most part chronology-related, or doctrines that we ended up getting locked into, because of our chronology doctrines (generation, etc.).
I have been very clear that I'm sure the Bible does not support our chronology teachings. I can now say that I have no doubts about this. The pseudo-archaeology we have used to try to get "outside" support for our chronology is undoubtedly also against the WT view, and it also happens to support the Bible's view. But I'm more interested in what the Bible itself says about our chronology doctrines.
I am 100 percent in agreement with our teachings on Soul, Trinity, Paradise Earth, War, Neutrality, Elders, Smoking/Recreational Drugs/Alcohol, Morals, Pagan Roots of Worldly Holidays, Meetings, Our Ministry, using God's Name, the Ransom, Jehovah's Sovereignty, His Eternal Purpose, and probably hundreds more specific understandings of scriptures that vary from the way that most of Christendom understands them.
Also, it doesn't "suit me" to contradict the Watchtower in those areas where the Bible evidence leads away from certain traditional teachings we have not broken free from yet. These differences sometimes result in painful realizations. Sometimes it's the realization that many are suffering (or have suffered) unnecessarily. The difference in the way certain young brothers are now treated in several countries where they were once told not to accept any kind of alternative service when their conscience would have allowed it is an example. We now know that there have been literally hundreds or even thousands of abused Witness children for whom any kind of justice was made difficult due to a policy that put the reputation of the organization first. 
Any difference between my own views and those of the Watchtower must always be based on Biblical evidence, prayer, meditation, conscience, reasonableness, and always FIRST giving the benefit of any doubt to the elder men who publish our teachings in the publications and through approved representatives. This way, if I find there are areas of doctrine I can no longer support in good conscience, it is no longer based on any doubt or conflict. There are also certain areas where I am still trying to follow the Bible's counsel to "make sure of all things." Those areas where I am "making sure" I am also willing to discuss here. And I'm happy to hear any Bible evidence you have that is appropriate.

Yikes. It's hard to believe it could be so "all or nothing." As you say, if we can't think like you, we won't really be able to understand. But it reminds me of a recent discussion about how God commanded "love" from the nation of Israel. They say you can't legislate love, but for some I suppose, even this idea can be a "tutor" leading to Christ. We go through the motions of love until we are responding the way a loving person responds, whether we think we have the same feelings most others do or not. For thousands of years, people have spoken this way about arranged marriages. It's the same part of Corinthians I just quoted from to Tom where the apostle Paul said:
(1 Corinthians 9:16-19) . . .Now if I am declaring the good news, it is no reason for me to boast, for necessity is laid upon me. Really, woe to me if I do not declare the good news! 17 If I do this willingly, I have a reward; but even if I do it against my will, I still have a stewardship entrusted to me. 18 What, then, is my reward? That when I declare the good news, I may offer the good news without cost, to avoid abusing my authority in the good news. 19 For though I am free from all people, I have made myself the slave to all, so that I may gain as many people as possible.
Sorry to second-guess, but I can just imagine that you would quickly focus on the expression "abusing my authority in the good news" and turn this into another comment about the GB. But my point is that we can also work alongside people we don't necessarily trust, and still accomplish some good. If and when we see them abuse their authority, we can point it out as Paul often did, but Paul also reminded the Corinthians here that it was OK for them to support (materially) some of those ministers who asked for material support, even though Paul wanted none of that for himself.

I was looking for an 80 percent up-vote emoji, (🤔?) but I gave you a full up-vote anyway because I think you have hit the target so well with several statements like the one I just re-quoted. I get the sense you are able to "aiming your blows so as not to be striking the air" and "not running aimlessly."
(1 Corinthians 9:24-27) 24 Do you not know that the runners in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win it. 25 Now everyone competing in a contest exercises self-control in all things. Of course, they do it to receive a crown that can perish, but we, one that does not perish. 26 Therefore, the way I am running is not aimlessly; the way I am aiming my blows is so as not to be striking the air; 27 but I pummel my body and lead it as a slave, so that after I have preached to others, I myself should not become disapproved somehow.
Of course, it's not about striking back at others' arguments, but how we continually train ourselves to keep the faith with so many obstacles about. One of the obstacles will always be our own human failings, and how we keep trying to fix these, to become the "approved" person we ought to be. We don't have to broadcast our personal failings, and most of us won't; so we might always give the appearance that we are more concerned about the failings of those around us. Most of the time, we watch how we walk, but there are times when we should give attention to the failings of those around us, and watch how they walk.
This is one of the reasons for this topic, because someone is concerned about the potential failings of another. To some it will look like paranoia, but some persons have a more protective and sometimes "hovering" sense. Reminds me of Jesus' words:  (Matthew 23:37) . . .how often I wanted to gather your children together the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings! But you did not want it.
Those who have seen the evil in people up close and personally may actually have a keener "intuitive" sense of potential evil. Or perhaps that "intuitive" sense has been destroyed for the same reasons. I have no idea, so I am not trying to answer John directly on this topic.
But to follow up on Paul's words about how we fight the fine fight of the faith for ourselves, Jude shows how we must also watch out for obstacles set by others:
(Jude 3-13) . . .Beloved ones, although I was making every effort to write you about the salvation we hold in common, I found it necessary to write you to urge you to put up a hard fight for the faith that was once for all time delivered to the holy ones. 4 My reason is that certain men have slipped in among you who were long ago appointed to this judgment by the Scriptures; they are ungodly men who turn the undeserved kindness of our God into an excuse for brazen conduct and who prove false to our only owner and Lord, Jesus Christ. . . . 12 These are the rocks hidden below water at your love feasts while they feast with you, shepherds who feed themselves without fear; waterless clouds carried here and there by the wind; fruitless trees in late autumn, having died twice and having been uprooted; 13 wild waves of the sea that cast up the foam of their own shame; stars with no set course, for which the blackest darkness stands reserved forever.

Yikes. It's hard to believe it could be so "all or nothing." As you say, if we can't think like you, we won't really be able to understand. But it reminds me of a recent discussion about how God commanded "love" from the nation of Israel. They say you can't legislate love, but for some I suppose, even this idea can be a "tutor" leading to Christ. We go through the motions of love until we are responding the way a loving person responds, whether we think we have the same feelings most others do or not. For thousands of years, people have spoken this way about arranged marriages. It's the same part of Corinthians I just quoted from to Tom where the apostle Paul said:
(1 Corinthians 9:16-19) . . .Now if I am declaring the good news, it is no reason for me to boast, for necessity is laid upon me. Really, woe to me if I do not declare the good news! 17 If I do this willingly, I have a reward; but even if I do it against my will, I still have a stewardship entrusted to me. 18 What, then, is my reward? That when I declare the good news, I may offer the good news without cost, to avoid abusing my authority in the good news. 19 For though I am free from all people, I have made myself the slave to all, so that I may gain as many people as possible.
Sorry to second-guess, but I can just imagine that you would quickly focus on the expression "abusing my authority in the good news" and turn this into another comment about the GB. But my point is that we can also work alongside people we don't necessarily trust, and still accomplish some good. If and when we see them abuse their authority, we can point it out as Paul often did, but Paul also reminded the Corinthians here that it was OK for them to support (materially) some of those ministers who asked for material support, even though Paul wanted none of that for himself.

I was looking for an 80 percent up-vote emoji, (🤔?) but I gave you a full up-vote anyway because I think you have hit the target so well with several statements like the one I just re-quoted. I get the sense you are able to "aiming your blows so as not to be striking the air" and "not running aimlessly."
(1 Corinthians 9:24-27) 24 Do you not know that the runners in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win it. 25 Now everyone competing in a contest exercises self-control in all things. Of course, they do it to receive a crown that can perish, but we, one that does not perish. 26 Therefore, the way I am running is not aimlessly; the way I am aiming my blows is so as not to be striking the air; 27 but I pummel my body and lead it as a slave, so that after I have preached to others, I myself should not become disapproved somehow.
Of course, it's not about striking back at others' arguments, but how we continually train ourselves to keep the faith with so many obstacles about. One of the obstacles will always be our own human failings, and how we keep trying to fix these, to become the "approved" person we ought to be. We don't have to broadcast our personal failings, and most of us won't; so we might always give the appearance that we are more concerned about the failings of those around us. Most of the time, we watch how we walk, but there are times when we should give attention to the failings of those around us, and watch how they walk.
This is one of the reasons for this topic, because someone is concerned about the potential failings of another. To some it will look like paranoia, but some persons have a more protective and sometimes "hovering" sense. Reminds me of Jesus' words:  (Matthew 23:37) . . .how often I wanted to gather your children together the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings! But you did not want it.
Those who have seen the evil in people up close and personally may actually have a keener "intuitive" sense of potential evil. Or perhaps that "intuitive" sense has been destroyed for the same reasons. I have no idea, so I am not trying to answer John directly on this topic.
But to follow up on Paul's words about how we fight the fine fight of the faith for ourselves, Jude shows how we must also watch out for obstacles set by others:
(Jude 3-13) . . .Beloved ones, although I was making every effort to write you about the salvation we hold in common, I found it necessary to write you to urge you to put up a hard fight for the faith that was once for all time delivered to the holy ones. 4 My reason is that certain men have slipped in among you who were long ago appointed to this judgment by the Scriptures; they are ungodly men who turn the undeserved kindness of our God into an excuse for brazen conduct and who prove false to our only owner and Lord, Jesus Christ. . . . 12 These are the rocks hidden below water at your love feasts while they feast with you, shepherds who feed themselves without fear; waterless clouds carried here and there by the wind; fruitless trees in late autumn, having died twice and having been uprooted; 13 wild waves of the sea that cast up the foam of their own shame; stars with no set course, for which the blackest darkness stands reserved forever.

Yes Billy I'm married to one, but I don't trust her and she knows that. 
The children know that I don't trust them either. 
i once wrote on my FB page :-
Which is worse : Love based on lies, or, Hate based on truth. 
You see Billy i am not you. I do not think like you. I do not act like you. I do not have the feelings / emotions like you. 
When you and others, begin to see other people, as OTHER people, not as people like you, then you and others may just start to begin to understand that not all of us live by the same rules.
You are trying to tell me I trust my wife because I'm married to her. Wrong. The trust died many years ago. 
I have no love for anyone, no trust in anyone. It does not mean that I hate people, it simply means I have no feelings for  them. 
I demand nothing, I expect nothing, therefore i no longer get disappointed by anyone. 
 
 

This is exactly how it was in the Jewish nation, per laws given to Moses, that serve as a last-ditch method of discipline.
 
I had someone contact me via email, trying to get me going, saying he was one of them—physically in, but mentally out. And—here’s the kicker—he said that after he placed literature he would later return to warn the householder not to read it! Or if he did, not to act upon it. Now, just let me get a mental picture of how that might go down:
Why did he place literature in the first place? He is “a member of a controlling cult that monitors everything he does, and so he has no choice!”—I guess he would have to say something like that. And they “control” him by threatening to take his family away if he doesn’t follow every “command” that they issue! It is too late for him, but not too late for you, Mr. Householder. Run and save yourself!
Really? Could that truly be?
Look, if you want to present the picture that opposers are batsh*t crazy, I can’t think of a better way to do it. On Christmas Eve, he goes to homes to sing Christmas carols. On every other night, he goes to sing Hotel California: 
‘You can check in any time you like—but you can never leave!’
or House of the Rising Sun:
‘and it’s been the ruin of many a poor boy, and God, I know, I’m one’
or For What it’s Worth:
‘step out of line, the men come to take you away!’
Sheesh. People are crazy. Batsh*t crazy—pure and simple.
He also said, (with a hee hee hee) that he was one of thousands! Could that be? Or is his army like that of Gideon, making such a god-awful racket that they seem far larger than they really are? Or is it just him? Or is it not even him—look, going door to door for even the right reason is a challenge—but to go twice to say that you want to take back what you said the first time because you are actually an undercover guerrilla fighter—when the householder wasn’t all that interested in the first place? What kind of a nutcase could pull that off? 
No matter. I don’t run away from these things. I run toward them. I think of the Philippians verse: 
“True, some are preaching the Christ through envy and rivalry, but others also through goodwill. The latter are publicizing the Christ out of love...but the former do it out of contentiousness, not with a pure motive, for they are supposing to stir up tribulation....What then? [Nothing,] except that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is being publicized, and in this I rejoice.” (1:15-18)
The object is to get the good news out there, and these unhinged nutcases only help the cause. To be sure, it is a strange way to get it out there, but it does get it out there. The whole program is strange, as I told one fellow trying to run a garage sale that no one was showing up for. Appear out of nowhere as a complete stranger and say you want to talk about God? Christians are a theatrical spectacle in all the earth, says Paul. Tell me about it.
Nor am I ashamed that there are so many “apostates.” I am proud of them. I consider them additional proof that what we have fulfills the Bible pattern. If we didn’t have any—that would be a test of my faith, for I would wonder why. There is no NT writer who does not deal with apostates. If they existed then, why would they not exist now? In fact, as we get closer to crunch time, you would expect them to be more numerous and virulent, and would wonder what was the problem if they were not.
To be sure, many Witnesses run away from these things—it has been the pattern. The time may come when they will tackle them head-on. Opponents are having their day in the sun—beyond all question they have thrust awkward, even disagreeable, aspects of JWs front and center on the world stage. I take my hat off to them. Well done! That does not mean that I admire them. It is more like when the Jurassic Park security chief says of the pterodactyl circling round to pounce on him, ‘Good girl!’ Then he was eaten alive amidst bloodcurdling screaming.
Will the beasts do the same this time? I think not. We are used to presenting the gem of the Christian way of life through it’s most appealing facet. Let us learn to present it through it’s least appealing one. It is the same gem. “The game is the same, it’s just up on another level.” That’s the song we should be singing—leave it to the lunatics to sing Hotel California!
The trick is not to try to sanitize the present. It is to de-sanitize the past. It is to say of Peter, ‘He is the most prominent one, and yet he cowers like an adolescent—his action can be (probably was) painted as hypocrisy on steroids! Once the Jewish Christians show up, he avoids company of the Gentile ones? And he is given the keys to the kingdom? Yes. That is how it is. God uses people despite phenomenal weaknesses. 
Transport it to the present day. We have people who did not avoid the trap that everyone else has fallen into. They wished not to advertise their dirty laundry—and to carry on as though they had none. They did it for perfectly understandable reasons—for fear of tarnishing the Name that they tried to stand proclaim. But they did it. The fact that they alone sought to investigate an evil in order to mete out discipline and protect other congregations does not matter.
They can ‘reform’ in the eyes of the reasonable world, and likely have done so even now, with various tweaks culminating in that May 2019 issue. But they will never ever reform enough in the eyes of their virulent detractors. At some point, perhaps they will take on detractors more openly—judiciously, and not so as to satisfy the detractors, which cannot be done, but to offer a defense of the Christian way to those whose ear the detractors have gained. This is what you want to be writing your books about, Greg Stafford, not arguing over the Trinity.
In other words, the things that detractors paint as sordid are exactly the traps that well-intentioned and imperfect people who are ‘insular’ (no part of the world) could be expected to fall into. We’ll learn, where necessary, to present the truth through this facet so easily spun as a negative. 
It is the same with disfellowshipping, which opposers (many of them disfellowshipped themselves) have made into a monster issue, and in this age where ‘victimization’ is all the rage, have thrust it into the public eye. Keep it there where it belongs. Don’t try to skulk away from it.
Jehovah’s Witnesses are a faith that adherents take seriously. If you don’t participate, even if you stop, that does not create ripples. If you turn 180 degrees and flame what your family holds most dear, that probably will. The scriptures “tell” congregation members what to do in that event. Leadership merely alerts to those scriptures & afterwards their job is done. It could be tweaked—has been already— but any competent leadership would know of the same verses & principles behind them. Most people will have little difficulty in accepting that if you persistently by word or deed refuse to conform to the standards of any group, you may find yourself out on your ear.
The malcontents who carry on that ‘if it is not perfect, it is filthy’ would not have lasted two minutes in the first century. They would have honed in on the ill doings of those Revelation 2 and 3 congregations and started screaming back then just as they are screaming now. 
And if they would not have lasted two minutes during the early days of the Christian congregation, they would not have lasted two seconds in the early days of the Jewish nation. Yes, yes, there are some things that are not exactly the same. But the similarities far outnumber the differences.
 
 
 

Brazen sounds a bit archaic, and can sometimes offer ambiguity if persons are familiar with another meaning of brazen, such as the ONLY definition (made of brass) that it had in the previous NWT. In the Appendix of the NWT Reference Bible (1984):
*** Rbi8 p. 1575 4D “Tartarus” ***
In Job 41:31, 32 (41:23, 24, LXX) we read concerning Leviathan: “He makes the deep boil like a brazen caldron; . . . "
But it's not a terrible translation, as it really was used in Greek with reference to "brazen hussies." (shameless hussies, and wanton hussies - and brazen hustlers, too, for that matter.) Literally, it meant people who were not so moral as those good folks up in the town of Selge, Pisidia, Asia Minor. It's much better than the old translation in the NWT (loose conduct) which was actually a mistranslation because it implied lesser moral infractions of a more general variety.
Note Thayer's:
ἀσέλγεια, -ας, ἡ, the conduct and character of one who is ἀσελγής (a word which some suppose to be compounded of the α privative and Σέλγη, the name of a city in Pisidia whose citizens excelled in strictness of morals [so Etym. Magn. 152, 38; per contra cf. Suidas 603 d.]: others of α intensive and σαλαγεῖν, to disturb, raise a din; others, and now the majority, of α privative and σέλγω equivalent to θέλγω, not affecting pleasantly, exciting disgust), unbridled lust, excess, licentiousness, lasciviousness, wantonness, outrageousness, shamelessness, insolence:Mark 7:22 (where it is uncertain what particular vice is spoken of); of gluttony and venery, Jude 1:4; plural, 1 Peter 4:3; 2 Peter 2:2 (for Rec. ἀπωλείαις), 2 Peter 2:18; of carnality, lasciviousness: 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 4:19; 2 Peter 2:7; plural "wanton (acts or) manners, as filthy words, indecent bodily movements, unchaste handling of males and females, etc." (Fritzsche), Romans 13:13. (In Biblical Greek besides only in Wis. 14:26 and 3 Macc. 2:26. Among Greek writings used by Plato, Isocrates and following; at length by Plutarch [Lucull. 38] and Lucian [dial. meretr. 6] of the wantonness of women [Lob. ad Phryn., p. 184 n.].) Cf. Tittmann i., p. 151f; [especially Trench, § xvi.].
I took 4 years of Hebrew in College (7 semesters) and learned a bit of Greek at Bethel. Still an amateur, of course, but learned enough to know that the NWT is actually an excellent translation with only a few verses where bias has created areas for further study. Most of its "mis-translations," in my opinion, do not necessarily add false informaiton, just interpreted information. Most of the time I'd say the interpreted information is quite likely true, just unnecessary for a pure translation.
Personally, I find both the 1984 and 2013 NWT to be very good, even the simpler revised version. But I couldn't do without an Interlinear. There was more consistency in the old NWT, and where words were added there were usually brackets around them. You have to really know a more literal translation well, for the Revised NWT to also be as useful. And, for the present, most JWs have a good knowledge of the NWT (more literal) and the NWT Revised, which puts them in pretty good shape. A simpler, easier to read version, is better for grasping the context, and a literal translation is better for study. We have them both, plus an excellent Interlinear (KIT).
I might have a few minor complaints with the NWT, but I have hundreds more with the KJV, RSV, and ASV. There are a few things I like better about the Jerusalem Bible and the RSV, but it doesn't matter so much any more. We all have the ability to check all kinds of good Bible language resources online, and dozens of parallel Bibles online for comparison.

Not this again!
But this time I won't get involved. I counsel myself:
(Proverbs 26:17) . . .As one grabbing hold of the ears of a dog is anyone passing by that is becoming furious at the quarrel that is not his.

( JTR squints his eyes and rubs his hands together slowly, as if putting on hand lotion ...)  "So THAT"S your caper, eh, El Bandito?"