JW Insider

Just a quick recap. I flippantly predicted that all medical blood products become a matter of conscience in 2026 and you said then that means you could argue that fornication and idol worship would also be a matter of conscience:
I wanted to acknowledge that idea by saying that a Christian like James would react similarly if he knew Paul was now saying it was OK for gentiles to eat meat sacrificed to an idol, after James had written that gentile Christians should abstain from meat sacrificed to an idol. Thus: 
To that, you said: 
So I first wanted to point out that James was also a scriptural Christian and he would also have drawn his conclusions about blood (and meat sacrificed to idols) from the way Jehovah viewed blood (and sacrifice and idolatry) all the way throughout the scriptures. So I think that in this regard all of us should want to be Jamesian Christians. 
If anything, James was looking for a good scriptural compromise that would help Christian Jews and Christian Gentiles be able to associate more closely.
After all, Christian association involved feasts and eating together. So much so that some were even using the Memorial celebration as another time for a feast. 
(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, . . . (Jude 12) . . .at your love feasts while they feast with you, shepherds who feed themselves. . . (2 Peter 2:13) . . .while feasting together with you.  (1 Corinthians 11:20, 21, 33, 34) . . .When you come together in one place, it is not really to eat the Lord’s Evening Meal. 21  For when you eat it, each one takes his own evening meal beforehand, so that one is hungry but another is intoxicated. . . . Consequently, my brothers, when you come together to eat it, wait for one another. 34  If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that when you come together it is not for judgment (Matthew 9:11) . . .“Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” (1 Corinthians 10:27) If an unbeliever invites you and you want to go, eat whatever is set before you. . .
  Without putting words in your mouth, or twisting them, like I did before, I'm going to try to guess what you probably mean. I think you are saying that Paul may have had a point in contradicting James on the "food sacrificed to idols" part of the decree, but that the blood part of the decree was too important, and there could be no rationale against such a longstanding decree that seems to go all through the entire Bible.  
If that's what you mean, then I'd say that personally I agree. The Bible remains clear on the blood issue, and I can't think of eating blood without finding it repulsive. I find the same thing goes on in my mind with medical uses of blood, even though I am aware that this isn't really the same as eating blood. Making use of whole blood or fractions of blood for medical purposes is more like a partial organ/tissue transplant. And it can be just as dangerous as other organ/tissue transplants. 
But I think that the central body of elders for modern day congregations of Witnesses have done something similar to what James was doing. They have looked for a scriptural compromise in allowing once-forbidden organ transplants and once-forbidden tissue transplants, but have still tried to show a respect for the idea of abstaining from blood, even in medical procedures that have nothing to do with eating blood. 
So although I am still a bit revulsed at the idea of using blood for medical purposes, I remember that I had the same revulsion for heart, kidney and liver transplants. To a smaller extent I still do. What you said before about heart transplants resonated with me. And what Pudgy said about David's refusal to even drink water representing blood resonated with me too. 
But the more we understand about medical procedures, and the more we can make our own decisions about safety risks, we can start to be less revulsed by the medical use of fractions, and less revulsed by other tissue/organ transplants. In fact, I long ago decided that I wouldn't impose my own conservative conscience upon my children. Then more recently I decided that some of these medical options might even become viable for me if a situation ever called for it. 
On David's choice, it seems that Jesus made a point that it actually would have been OK for David not just to drink that water, perfectly legal, but to actually break God's law and even eat the shewbread that only the priests could eat upon penalty of death for anyone else:
(Matthew 12:2-7) . . .the Pharisees said to him: “Look! Your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” 3 He said to them: “Have you not read what David did when he and the men with him were hungry? 4 How he entered into the house of God and they ate the loaves of presentation, something that it was not lawful for him or those with him to eat, but for the priests only? . . . 7  However, if you had understood what this means, ‘I want mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless ones.
(Matthew 12:11, 12)  He said to them: “If you have one sheep and that sheep falls into a pit on the Sabbath, is there a man among you who will not grab hold of it and lift it out? 12  How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! . . .
(Matthew 15:6-11) . . .’ So you have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition.. . .11  It is not what enters into a man’s mouth that defiles him, but it is what comes out of his mouth that defiles him.”
Perhaps we are just not ready for what may well have been Paul's outlook for gentiles on blood, things strangled, and meat sacrificed to idols. But we are slowly moving in the right direction. Previously, I think I made too much of a point about James going for the Noahide decree as opposed to the Mosaic decree when making a burden for gentiles. Now, I am looking at Paul's view which is apparently against ALL LAW, no matter how good those laws appear. Under Christ, we are no longer under law at all. We don't need to be. There will always be those who will fight the idea and say that if we don't put Christians under at least some law, they are going to go "hog-wild" as a friend of mine at Bethel used to put it. They'll say we can't trust the brothers to do what's right unless we give them rules and goals and quotas. But Paul would have been against the Noahide laws, too. Christians are under "undeserved kindness" not law. 
I like the way Colossians puts it.
(Colossians 2:8-3:5) . . .Look out that no one takes you captive by means of the philosophy and empty deception according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ; because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily.  . . .  God made you alive together with him. He kindly forgave us all our trespasses and erased the handwritten document that consisted of decrees and was in opposition to us. . . . Therefore, do not let anyone judge you about what you eat and drink or about the observance of a festival or of the new moon or of a sabbath. . . . Let no man deprive you of the prize who takes delight in a false humility and a form of worship of the angels, “taking his stand on” the things he has seen. . . .  If you died together with Christ with respect to the elementary things of the world, why do you live as if still part of the world by further subjecting yourselves to the decrees: “Do not handle, nor taste, nor touch,”  referring to things that all perish with their use, according to the commands and teachings of men?  Although those things have an appearance of wisdom in a self-imposed form of worship . . . they are of no value in combating the satisfying of the flesh. . . .  Deaden, therefore, your body members that are on the earth as respects sexual immorality, uncleanness, uncontrolled sexual passion, hurtful desire, and greediness, which is idolatry. 

Don't know.
But the explanation for the differences in this particular example could easily be that the Acts 15 decree was right for the time and place, just as letting prophets speak up in the first century congregation was right for the time and place. Peter's "killing" of two members of the congregation for lying about the extent of a financial contribution might have been right for the time and place. Certain types of healing, use of oil, speaking in tongues, etc., might also have right for the time and place. The holy spirit may well have been "leading" through difficult periods in ways that were not going to be right for another time, or even for other congregations with different situations.  

Just a quick recap. I flippantly predicted that all medical blood products become a matter of conscience in 2026 and you said then that means you could argue that fornication and idol worship would also be a matter of conscience:
I wanted to acknowledge that idea by saying that a Christian like James would react similarly if he knew Paul was now saying it was OK for gentiles to eat meat sacrificed to an idol, after James had written that gentile Christians should abstain from meat sacrificed to an idol. Thus: 
To that, you said: 
So I first wanted to point out that James was also a scriptural Christian and he would also have drawn his conclusions about blood (and meat sacrificed to idols) from the way Jehovah viewed blood (and sacrifice and idolatry) all the way throughout the scriptures. So I think that in this regard all of us should want to be Jamesian Christians. 
If anything, James was looking for a good scriptural compromise that would help Christian Jews and Christian Gentiles be able to associate more closely.
After all, Christian association involved feasts and eating together. So much so that some were even using the Memorial celebration as another time for a feast. 
(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, . . . (Jude 12) . . .at your love feasts while they feast with you, shepherds who feed themselves. . . (2 Peter 2:13) . . .while feasting together with you.  (1 Corinthians 11:20, 21, 33, 34) . . .When you come together in one place, it is not really to eat the Lord’s Evening Meal. 21  For when you eat it, each one takes his own evening meal beforehand, so that one is hungry but another is intoxicated. . . . Consequently, my brothers, when you come together to eat it, wait for one another. 34  If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that when you come together it is not for judgment (Matthew 9:11) . . .“Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” (1 Corinthians 10:27) If an unbeliever invites you and you want to go, eat whatever is set before you. . .
  Without putting words in your mouth, or twisting them, like I did before, I'm going to try to guess what you probably mean. I think you are saying that Paul may have had a point in contradicting James on the "food sacrificed to idols" part of the decree, but that the blood part of the decree was too important, and there could be no rationale against such a longstanding decree that seems to go all through the entire Bible.  
If that's what you mean, then I'd say that personally I agree. The Bible remains clear on the blood issue, and I can't think of eating blood without finding it repulsive. I find the same thing goes on in my mind with medical uses of blood, even though I am aware that this isn't really the same as eating blood. Making use of whole blood or fractions of blood for medical purposes is more like a partial organ/tissue transplant. And it can be just as dangerous as other organ/tissue transplants. 
But I think that the central body of elders for modern day congregations of Witnesses have done something similar to what James was doing. They have looked for a scriptural compromise in allowing once-forbidden organ transplants and once-forbidden tissue transplants, but have still tried to show a respect for the idea of abstaining from blood, even in medical procedures that have nothing to do with eating blood. 
So although I am still a bit revulsed at the idea of using blood for medical purposes, I remember that I had the same revulsion for heart, kidney and liver transplants. To a smaller extent I still do. What you said before about heart transplants resonated with me. And what Pudgy said about David's refusal to even drink water representing blood resonated with me too. 
But the more we understand about medical procedures, and the more we can make our own decisions about safety risks, we can start to be less revulsed by the medical use of fractions, and less revulsed by other tissue/organ transplants. In fact, I long ago decided that I wouldn't impose my own conservative conscience upon my children. Then more recently I decided that some of these medical options might even become viable for me if a situation ever called for it. 
On David's choice, it seems that Jesus made a point that it actually would have been OK for David not just to drink that water, perfectly legal, but to actually break God's law and even eat the shewbread that only the priests could eat upon penalty of death for anyone else:
(Matthew 12:2-7) . . .the Pharisees said to him: “Look! Your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” 3 He said to them: “Have you not read what David did when he and the men with him were hungry? 4 How he entered into the house of God and they ate the loaves of presentation, something that it was not lawful for him or those with him to eat, but for the priests only? . . . 7  However, if you had understood what this means, ‘I want mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless ones.
(Matthew 12:11, 12)  He said to them: “If you have one sheep and that sheep falls into a pit on the Sabbath, is there a man among you who will not grab hold of it and lift it out? 12  How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! . . .
(Matthew 15:6-11) . . .’ So you have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition.. . .11  It is not what enters into a man’s mouth that defiles him, but it is what comes out of his mouth that defiles him.”
Perhaps we are just not ready for what may well have been Paul's outlook for gentiles on blood, things strangled, and meat sacrificed to idols. But we are slowly moving in the right direction. Previously, I think I made too much of a point about James going for the Noahide decree as opposed to the Mosaic decree when making a burden for gentiles. Now, I am looking at Paul's view which is apparently against ALL LAW, no matter how good those laws appear. Under Christ, we are no longer under law at all. We don't need to be. There will always be those who will fight the idea and say that if we don't put Christians under at least some law, they are going to go "hog-wild" as a friend of mine at Bethel used to put it. They'll say we can't trust the brothers to do what's right unless we give them rules and goals and quotas. But Paul would have been against the Noahide laws, too. Christians are under "undeserved kindness" not law. 
I like the way Colossians puts it.
(Colossians 2:8-3:5) . . .Look out that no one takes you captive by means of the philosophy and empty deception according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ; because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily.  . . .  God made you alive together with him. He kindly forgave us all our trespasses and erased the handwritten document that consisted of decrees and was in opposition to us. . . . Therefore, do not let anyone judge you about what you eat and drink or about the observance of a festival or of the new moon or of a sabbath. . . . Let no man deprive you of the prize who takes delight in a false humility and a form of worship of the angels, “taking his stand on” the things he has seen. . . .  If you died together with Christ with respect to the elementary things of the world, why do you live as if still part of the world by further subjecting yourselves to the decrees: “Do not handle, nor taste, nor touch,”  referring to things that all perish with their use, according to the commands and teachings of men?  Although those things have an appearance of wisdom in a self-imposed form of worship . . . they are of no value in combating the satisfying of the flesh. . . .  Deaden, therefore, your body members that are on the earth as respects sexual immorality, uncleanness, uncontrolled sexual passion, hurtful desire, and greediness, which is idolatry. 

Yes, I see your point, and I agree. It could, from our point of view, have been made clearer. Could it be because they are two different contexts?
Like when Paul says:
(Romans 3:28) 28 For we consider that a man is declared righteous by faith apart from works of law. . .
And James mentions something apparently contradictory:
(James 2:24) . . .You see that a man is to be declared righteous by works and not by faith alone.

I agree that blood is not in the context at all. But this was also my point. If abstaining from unbled meat was so important for a Gentile to learn about when it came to matters of conscience, then why wouldn't Paul make the reminder? Especially here, when he uses the same exact term for "meat sacrificed to an idol" that the Jerusalem congregation used (Acts 15 and Acts 21).
Paul said, don't abstain from εἰδωλοθύτων [meat sacrificed to an idol].
James said, abstain from εἰδωλοθύτων [meat sacrificed to an idol].
Paul took the point to an extra degree by saying to eat anything an unbeliever might set before asking NO questions about it.
If it was so important to follow the Acts 15 decree for all time --even when not in the presence of  "Mosaic Christians" like James, Peter and John-- then there would have been at least two additional important questions to ask about it: 1) Was it correctly bled? 2) Was the animal strangled?

You know (rhetorically), 85% of all problems discussed here on this thread could be SOLVED if the Congregations were governed SPECIFICALLY and EXACTLY  as Jesus directed in Matthew 18:14-17.
What we are seeing now is not even close.
When we interact with people of the nations and tax collectors, who among us here treats them like lepers and takes their families hostage if they don’t do the same?
Nobody.

I think the reasoning the WT would go with will be something like this: The Acts 15 decree said to abstain from food polluted by idols, and from the meat of strangled animals, too: 
 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.  Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols [εἰδωλοθύτων], from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.
There is a very specific Greek word for "food polluted by idols." [εἰδωλοθύτων] Paul used that exact same specific Greek word in 1 Cor. 8.
Note first what Paul says about "food sacrificed to idols." [εἰδωλοθύτων]:
(1 Cor 8 ) Now about food sacrificed to idols [εἰδωλοθύτων]: We know that “We all possess knowledge.” But knowledge puffs up while love builds up. Those who think they know something do not yet know as they ought to know. But whoever loves God is known by God. So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: [εἰδωλοθύτων]:We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.
And Paul goes on to imply that you as a Christian could actually go ahead and eat this meat sacrificed to an idol right there inside the pagan idol temple itself. But that it's not a good idea because of the weak Christian with a weak conscience who might see you and can't understand why you might be eating food sacrificed to idols in any place.
Then in 1 Cor 10, Paul goes on to say that we don't even need to question whether food was strangled, or whether it was bled correctly, or whether it was sacrificed to an idol. The only thing to be concerned about are those people with weak consciences who are still around and who think we still need the Mosaic Law. (Or at least they were still around in Paul's day.) 
Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.”[ If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” [εἰδωλοθύτων] then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience. I am referring to the other person’s conscience, not yours. For why is my freedom being judged by another’s conscience? If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?
So a very specific thing that Acts 15 told Gentiles to abstain from was food sacrificed to idols. Yet Paul said go ahead and eat it without any qualms of conscience. Paul said to eat whatever an UNBELIEVER puts in front of you to eat; eat ANYTHING sold in the meat market. This could easily include bloody, strangled meat. ANYTHING!! An unbeliever didn't even necessarily follow the Noahide Laws, much less the Mosaic Laws. 
There were people in Corinth who thought they could argue that fornication and idolatry were OK. Some might consider celebrating the Lord's evening meal along with one of the big idol feasts that each city often held. Paul said that was idolatry, and Paul said to Flee from idolatry. Some were evidently "proud" that the congregation could put up with a notorious fornicator, but Paul gave arguments in 1 Corinthians about why fornication was always wrong. 
So if you follow Paul, you might find that bloody meat and food sacrificed to idols was now a matter of conscience, but you couldn't argue for idolatry and fornication.
The best explanation must therefore be that the holy spirit led those Christians who were still zealous for the Law of Moses to find a reason for some useful compromise. It would be necessary for Gentiles to follow this compromise for as long as Gentile Christians needed to associate with Jewish Christians who were still zealous for the Law.
Acts 21: Then they said to Paul: "You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law.
But after 70 CE, no Jewish Christians could be zealous for the Law any more. If you thought you had to follow any part of the Law then you must follow the whole Law, and the whole Law required the temple. The book of Hebrews shows how the entire temple arrangement had become fulfilled for Jewish Christians. There were no more sacrifices and the city of Jerusalem was not a city that remains, so Jewish Christians (Hebrews) needed to now go OUTSIDE the camp, once and for all time:
(Hebrews 13) Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings. It is good for our hearts to be strengthened by grace, not by eating ceremonial foods, which is of no benefit to those who do so.  We have an altar from which those who minister at the tabernacle have no right to eat. The high priest carries the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place as a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp. And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood.  Let us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore.  For here we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the city that is to come. Through Jesus, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise—the fruit of lips that openly profess his name. And do not forget to do good and to share with others, for with such sacrifices God is pleased.

I think the reasoning the WT would go with will be something like this: The Acts 15 decree said to abstain from food polluted by idols, and from the meat of strangled animals, too: 
 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.  Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols [εἰδωλοθύτων], from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.
There is a very specific Greek word for "food polluted by idols." [εἰδωλοθύτων] Paul used that exact same specific Greek word in 1 Cor. 8.
Note first what Paul says about "food sacrificed to idols." [εἰδωλοθύτων]:
(1 Cor 8 ) Now about food sacrificed to idols [εἰδωλοθύτων]: We know that “We all possess knowledge.” But knowledge puffs up while love builds up. Those who think they know something do not yet know as they ought to know. But whoever loves God is known by God. So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: [εἰδωλοθύτων]:We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.
And Paul goes on to imply that you as a Christian could actually go ahead and eat this meat sacrificed to an idol right there inside the pagan idol temple itself. But that it's not a good idea because of the weak Christian with a weak conscience who might see you and can't understand why you might be eating food sacrificed to idols in any place.
Then in 1 Cor 10, Paul goes on to say that we don't even need to question whether food was strangled, or whether it was bled correctly, or whether it was sacrificed to an idol. The only thing to be concerned about are those people with weak consciences who are still around and who think we still need the Mosaic Law. (Or at least they were still around in Paul's day.) 
Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.”[ If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” [εἰδωλοθύτων] then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience. I am referring to the other person’s conscience, not yours. For why is my freedom being judged by another’s conscience? If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?
So a very specific thing that Acts 15 told Gentiles to abstain from was food sacrificed to idols. Yet Paul said go ahead and eat it without any qualms of conscience. Paul said to eat whatever an UNBELIEVER puts in front of you to eat; eat ANYTHING sold in the meat market. This could easily include bloody, strangled meat. ANYTHING!! An unbeliever didn't even necessarily follow the Noahide Laws, much less the Mosaic Laws. 
There were people in Corinth who thought they could argue that fornication and idolatry were OK. Some might consider celebrating the Lord's evening meal along with one of the big idol feasts that each city often held. Paul said that was idolatry, and Paul said to Flee from idolatry. Some were evidently "proud" that the congregation could put up with a notorious fornicator, but Paul gave arguments in 1 Corinthians about why fornication was always wrong. 
So if you follow Paul, you might find that bloody meat and food sacrificed to idols was now a matter of conscience, but you couldn't argue for idolatry and fornication.
The best explanation must therefore be that the holy spirit led those Christians who were still zealous for the Law of Moses to find a reason for some useful compromise. It would be necessary for Gentiles to follow this compromise for as long as Gentile Christians needed to associate with Jewish Christians who were still zealous for the Law.
Acts 21: Then they said to Paul: "You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law.
But after 70 CE, no Jewish Christians could be zealous for the Law any more. If you thought you had to follow any part of the Law then you must follow the whole Law, and the whole Law required the temple. The book of Hebrews shows how the entire temple arrangement had become fulfilled for Jewish Christians. There were no more sacrifices and the city of Jerusalem was not a city that remains, so Jewish Christians (Hebrews) needed to now go OUTSIDE the camp, once and for all time:
(Hebrews 13) Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings. It is good for our hearts to be strengthened by grace, not by eating ceremonial foods, which is of no benefit to those who do so.  We have an altar from which those who minister at the tabernacle have no right to eat. The high priest carries the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place as a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp. And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood.  Let us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore.  For here we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the city that is to come. Through Jesus, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise—the fruit of lips that openly profess his name. And do not forget to do good and to share with others, for with such sacrifices God is pleased.

My speculations aren't worth the time to read them, but I'm guessing a timeline like the following: 
2024: No more Circuit Overseers. (The reason that the District Overseers were let go was not because they were costing too much money for cars, convention travel, etc, but because they tended to draw too close a connection between the Headquarters (WTBTS) and the direction followed within all the congregations. This resulted in some legal problems when WT lawyers claimed that the elders shepherd the flock on their own, and the guidance from HQ is not rule-based but only principle-based. But the same legal issue applies with Circuit Overseers.
2025: Shunning is now a matter of conscience. We should all be wary of our associations, but exactly how we implement a shunning policy is up to each one of us. Scriptures will include some Mosaic Law principles related to immediate family, and especially Jesus' parable of the Prodigal Son who was welcomed from afar off, before the father knew anything about motives or repentance.
2026: Blood related therapies in any form are now (officially) a matter of conscience. 
2027: All Bible prophecies said to have a specific fulfillment in 1918, 1919, 1921, . . even into the 1940's will now be officially off the books.
2028: Head coverings now a matter of conscience. But no sister will dare conduct in front of a brother without one.
2034: October 1st "JW Broadcast" and additional GB announcement on October 2nd both offer renewed speculation about 1914 + 120 years = 2034 (i.e. "on or about October 4th, 2034")
2034: Amidst winks and nods, and even some outright laughter, the Annual Meeting will be announced for Sunday October 8th 2034 with simulcasting everywhere to all congregations. Expect announcement that "after careful consideration over the previous several days" ...the 1914 doctrine will be dropped completely at this meeting on October 8th.
2034: Great Tribulation and Armageddon begins October 9, 2034.

I think the reasoning the WT would go with will be something like this: The Acts 15 decree said to abstain from food polluted by idols, and from the meat of strangled animals, too: 
 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.  Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols [εἰδωλοθύτων], from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.
There is a very specific Greek word for "food polluted by idols." [εἰδωλοθύτων] Paul used that exact same specific Greek word in 1 Cor. 8.
Note first what Paul says about "food sacrificed to idols." [εἰδωλοθύτων]:
(1 Cor 8 ) Now about food sacrificed to idols [εἰδωλοθύτων]: We know that “We all possess knowledge.” But knowledge puffs up while love builds up. Those who think they know something do not yet know as they ought to know. But whoever loves God is known by God. So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: [εἰδωλοθύτων]:We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.
And Paul goes on to imply that you as a Christian could actually go ahead and eat this meat sacrificed to an idol right there inside the pagan idol temple itself. But that it's not a good idea because of the weak Christian with a weak conscience who might see you and can't understand why you might be eating food sacrificed to idols in any place.
Then in 1 Cor 10, Paul goes on to say that we don't even need to question whether food was strangled, or whether it was bled correctly, or whether it was sacrificed to an idol. The only thing to be concerned about are those people with weak consciences who are still around and who think we still need the Mosaic Law. (Or at least they were still around in Paul's day.) 
Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.”[ If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” [εἰδωλοθύτων] then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience. I am referring to the other person’s conscience, not yours. For why is my freedom being judged by another’s conscience? If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?
So a very specific thing that Acts 15 told Gentiles to abstain from was food sacrificed to idols. Yet Paul said go ahead and eat it without any qualms of conscience. Paul said to eat whatever an UNBELIEVER puts in front of you to eat; eat ANYTHING sold in the meat market. This could easily include bloody, strangled meat. ANYTHING!! An unbeliever didn't even necessarily follow the Noahide Laws, much less the Mosaic Laws. 
There were people in Corinth who thought they could argue that fornication and idolatry were OK. Some might consider celebrating the Lord's evening meal along with one of the big idol feasts that each city often held. Paul said that was idolatry, and Paul said to Flee from idolatry. Some were evidently "proud" that the congregation could put up with a notorious fornicator, but Paul gave arguments in 1 Corinthians about why fornication was always wrong. 
So if you follow Paul, you might find that bloody meat and food sacrificed to idols was now a matter of conscience, but you couldn't argue for idolatry and fornication.
The best explanation must therefore be that the holy spirit led those Christians who were still zealous for the Law of Moses to find a reason for some useful compromise. It would be necessary for Gentiles to follow this compromise for as long as Gentile Christians needed to associate with Jewish Christians who were still zealous for the Law.
Acts 21: Then they said to Paul: "You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law.
But after 70 CE, no Jewish Christians could be zealous for the Law any more. If you thought you had to follow any part of the Law then you must follow the whole Law, and the whole Law required the temple. The book of Hebrews shows how the entire temple arrangement had become fulfilled for Jewish Christians. There were no more sacrifices and the city of Jerusalem was not a city that remains, so Jewish Christians (Hebrews) needed to now go OUTSIDE the camp, once and for all time:
(Hebrews 13) Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings. It is good for our hearts to be strengthened by grace, not by eating ceremonial foods, which is of no benefit to those who do so.  We have an altar from which those who minister at the tabernacle have no right to eat. The high priest carries the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place as a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp. And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood.  Let us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore.  For here we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the city that is to come. Through Jesus, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise—the fruit of lips that openly profess his name. And do not forget to do good and to share with others, for with such sacrifices God is pleased.

My speculations aren't worth the time to read them, but I'm guessing a timeline like the following: 
2024: No more Circuit Overseers. (The reason that the District Overseers were let go was not because they were costing too much money for cars, convention travel, etc, but because they tended to draw too close a connection between the Headquarters (WTBTS) and the direction followed within all the congregations. This resulted in some legal problems when WT lawyers claimed that the elders shepherd the flock on their own, and the guidance from HQ is not rule-based but only principle-based. But the same legal issue applies with Circuit Overseers.
2025: Shunning is now a matter of conscience. We should all be wary of our associations, but exactly how we implement a shunning policy is up to each one of us. Scriptures will include some Mosaic Law principles related to immediate family, and especially Jesus' parable of the Prodigal Son who was welcomed from afar off, before the father knew anything about motives or repentance.
2026: Blood related therapies in any form are now (officially) a matter of conscience. 
2027: All Bible prophecies said to have a specific fulfillment in 1918, 1919, 1921, . . even into the 1940's will now be officially off the books.
2028: Head coverings now a matter of conscience. But no sister will dare conduct in front of a brother without one.
2034: October 1st "JW Broadcast" and additional GB announcement on October 2nd both offer renewed speculation about 1914 + 120 years = 2034 (i.e. "on or about October 4th, 2034")
2034: Amidst winks and nods, and even some outright laughter, the Annual Meeting will be announced for Sunday October 8th 2034 with simulcasting everywhere to all congregations. Expect announcement that "after careful consideration over the previous several days" ...the 1914 doctrine will be dropped completely at this meeting on October 8th.
2034: Great Tribulation and Armageddon begins October 9, 2034.

My speculations aren't worth the time to read them, but I'm guessing a timeline like the following: 
2024: No more Circuit Overseers. (The reason that the District Overseers were let go was not because they were costing too much money for cars, convention travel, etc, but because they tended to draw too close a connection between the Headquarters (WTBTS) and the direction followed within all the congregations. This resulted in some legal problems when WT lawyers claimed that the elders shepherd the flock on their own, and the guidance from HQ is not rule-based but only principle-based. But the same legal issue applies with Circuit Overseers.
2025: Shunning is now a matter of conscience. We should all be wary of our associations, but exactly how we implement a shunning policy is up to each one of us. Scriptures will include some Mosaic Law principles related to immediate family, and especially Jesus' parable of the Prodigal Son who was welcomed from afar off, before the father knew anything about motives or repentance.
2026: Blood related therapies in any form are now (officially) a matter of conscience. 
2027: All Bible prophecies said to have a specific fulfillment in 1918, 1919, 1921, . . even into the 1940's will now be officially off the books.
2028: Head coverings now a matter of conscience. But no sister will dare conduct in front of a brother without one.
2034: October 1st "JW Broadcast" and additional GB announcement on October 2nd both offer renewed speculation about 1914 + 120 years = 2034 (i.e. "on or about October 4th, 2034")
2034: Amidst winks and nods, and even some outright laughter, the Annual Meeting will be announced for Sunday October 8th 2034 with simulcasting everywhere to all congregations. Expect announcement that "after careful consideration over the previous several days" ...the 1914 doctrine will be dropped completely at this meeting on October 8th.
2034: Great Tribulation and Armageddon begins October 9, 2034.

So Brother Rando was right..
2026…so I could argue that means fornication and idol worship was a matter of conscience 
I like your speculations but I dont want to wait for ten years………tho the 120 yrs thing is a big thing in my mind.

My speculations aren't worth the time to read them, but I'm guessing a timeline like the following: 
2024: No more Circuit Overseers. (The reason that the District Overseers were let go was not because they were costing too much money for cars, convention travel, etc, but because they tended to draw too close a connection between the Headquarters (WTBTS) and the direction followed within all the congregations. This resulted in some legal problems when WT lawyers claimed that the elders shepherd the flock on their own, and the guidance from HQ is not rule-based but only principle-based. But the same legal issue applies with Circuit Overseers.
2025: Shunning is now a matter of conscience. We should all be wary of our associations, but exactly how we implement a shunning policy is up to each one of us. Scriptures will include some Mosaic Law principles related to immediate family, and especially Jesus' parable of the Prodigal Son who was welcomed from afar off, before the father knew anything about motives or repentance.
2026: Blood related therapies in any form are now (officially) a matter of conscience. 
2027: All Bible prophecies said to have a specific fulfillment in 1918, 1919, 1921, . . even into the 1940's will now be officially off the books.
2028: Head coverings now a matter of conscience. But no sister will dare conduct in front of a brother without one.
2034: October 1st "JW Broadcast" and additional GB announcement on October 2nd both offer renewed speculation about 1914 + 120 years = 2034 (i.e. "on or about October 4th, 2034")
2034: Amidst winks and nods, and even some outright laughter, the Annual Meeting will be announced for Sunday October 8th 2034 with simulcasting everywhere to all congregations. Expect announcement that "after careful consideration over the previous several days" ...the 1914 doctrine will be dropped completely at this meeting on October 8th.
2034: Great Tribulation and Armageddon begins October 9, 2034.

My speculations aren't worth the time to read them, but I'm guessing a timeline like the following: 
2024: No more Circuit Overseers. (The reason that the District Overseers were let go was not because they were costing too much money for cars, convention travel, etc, but because they tended to draw too close a connection between the Headquarters (WTBTS) and the direction followed within all the congregations. This resulted in some legal problems when WT lawyers claimed that the elders shepherd the flock on their own, and the guidance from HQ is not rule-based but only principle-based. But the same legal issue applies with Circuit Overseers.
2025: Shunning is now a matter of conscience. We should all be wary of our associations, but exactly how we implement a shunning policy is up to each one of us. Scriptures will include some Mosaic Law principles related to immediate family, and especially Jesus' parable of the Prodigal Son who was welcomed from afar off, before the father knew anything about motives or repentance.
2026: Blood related therapies in any form are now (officially) a matter of conscience. 
2027: All Bible prophecies said to have a specific fulfillment in 1918, 1919, 1921, . . even into the 1940's will now be officially off the books.
2028: Head coverings now a matter of conscience. But no sister will dare conduct in front of a brother without one.
2034: October 1st "JW Broadcast" and additional GB announcement on October 2nd both offer renewed speculation about 1914 + 120 years = 2034 (i.e. "on or about October 4th, 2034")
2034: Amidst winks and nods, and even some outright laughter, the Annual Meeting will be announced for Sunday October 8th 2034 with simulcasting everywhere to all congregations. Expect announcement that "after careful consideration over the previous several days" ...the 1914 doctrine will be dropped completely at this meeting on October 8th.
2034: Great Tribulation and Armageddon begins October 9, 2034.

My speculations aren't worth the time to read them, but I'm guessing a timeline like the following: 
2024: No more Circuit Overseers. (The reason that the District Overseers were let go was not because they were costing too much money for cars, convention travel, etc, but because they tended to draw too close a connection between the Headquarters (WTBTS) and the direction followed within all the congregations. This resulted in some legal problems when WT lawyers claimed that the elders shepherd the flock on their own, and the guidance from HQ is not rule-based but only principle-based. But the same legal issue applies with Circuit Overseers.
2025: Shunning is now a matter of conscience. We should all be wary of our associations, but exactly how we implement a shunning policy is up to each one of us. Scriptures will include some Mosaic Law principles related to immediate family, and especially Jesus' parable of the Prodigal Son who was welcomed from afar off, before the father knew anything about motives or repentance.
2026: Blood related therapies in any form are now (officially) a matter of conscience. 
2027: All Bible prophecies said to have a specific fulfillment in 1918, 1919, 1921, . . even into the 1940's will now be officially off the books.
2028: Head coverings now a matter of conscience. But no sister will dare conduct in front of a brother without one.
2034: October 1st "JW Broadcast" and additional GB announcement on October 2nd both offer renewed speculation about 1914 + 120 years = 2034 (i.e. "on or about October 4th, 2034")
2034: Amidst winks and nods, and even some outright laughter, the Annual Meeting will be announced for Sunday October 8th 2034 with simulcasting everywhere to all congregations. Expect announcement that "after careful consideration over the previous several days" ...the 1914 doctrine will be dropped completely at this meeting on October 8th.
2034: Great Tribulation and Armageddon begins October 9, 2034.

Because they tried to do it gradually and it didn’t work:
https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2023/12/beards-get-the-green-light.html
I did my very best to reassemble all—the good, the bad, and the ugly—stopping short only at the ridiculous.

Almost anything can be open to such an interpretation if you’re willing to stretch enough. How many things are there among a sizable group of people that have zero financial impact? If you have cynicism running through your veins, anything can be framed as primarily motivated by the money that is ‘the root of all evil.’
Even in more plausible scenarios in which money might be a factor, how does that become a bad thing? Are mobsters the only people who use money? Don’t good and honest people do it too? Did Jesus condemn stewards for being wise in managing resources? Even one who was a bit slippery he managed to praise. It’s good to take money into account. It doesn’t always correlate with wickedness. More often it correlates with good, plain, beneficial common sense, so that you are foolish if you ignore it.
To constantly harp on money, even in plausible situations (which I agree with you, the above two situations are not) —doesn’t it become a ‘You hypocrites! Which one of you has a bull falling into a pit on Sabbath who will not immediately pull it out?’ type of scenario? Anyone here who gets a hole in his wallet who will not immediately stitch in up?
Now, time for my Bible reading: 
“If you build a new house, you must also make a parapet for your roof, so that you may not bring bloodguilt on your house because of someone falling from it.”
And Pudgy the Muttite said: “Bloodguilt, schmoodguilt! I’ll tell you why Moses is saying this! $$$$$$$$$!! What! He thinks I was born yesterday?”

I think that's a logical stretch, but I have heard similar ideas about the recent change to allow publishers to be counted even without any hourly goal to report. In an instant, it could bring up the number of publishers to include those who are just attending and rarely report. If membership now reflects attendance rather than regular service reports, then the numbers go up. This can have the effect of making more Witnesses more enthusiastic about the organization. Remember how we used to hear announcements of increases in country after country at conventions and we'd clap and cheer. This year the only place they pointed to, so far, was the Philippines.
If anyone feels like a full member who didn't before, they might feel more inclined to contribute. It also can make for easier converts who might have previously been taken aback at this "salesmen's approach" to making converts. (If you don't know what I mean, look at some of the older publications referring to sales goals and book-selling campaigns, and compare it to any sales meetings from those days when it was popular for people to go door-to-door selling encyclopedias, vitamins, Amway, magazine subscriptions, Fuller Brush, vacuums, Mary Kay, snake oil, etc.)
There is also the more cynical view that there are a couple of countries that give the JWs a monetary "reward" based on the number of JWs in those countries. This is based on the idea that the religions tend to take some of the burden away from the government for charity, social events, child education, elderly care, weddings, funerals, etc.  
Therefore if a religion increases the number of members, they increase their government "reimbursement." Using a membership number closer to the Memorial attendance could be a financial boon in those countries.
A change in beard policy doesn't seem to fit very well. At best it might make a very few persons feel like "full members" when they didn't feel that way before. It could potentially allow more persons to more easily convert, and therefore more likely to contribute. 
I think we've all heard the rumors that the Organization is losing money, and this has driven the reduction in KH's all over the world. We have even heard it stated in videos on jw.org (not just leaked ones). I suspect a connection to lawsuits and potential lawsuits over sexual abuse, blood, and now shunning. But losing money could also just be based on over-optimism about video projects, and building projects, not the lawsuits. And I have seen no evidence that even that cynicism about number of members, and additional converts is true. 
I prefer to think that the Society just wanted to finally "get out of our hair" on this matter. Nit-picking over such details could stubble someone.  
 

I think that's a logical stretch, but I have heard similar ideas about the recent change to allow publishers to be counted even without any hourly goal to report. In an instant, it could bring up the number of publishers to include those who are just attending and rarely report. If membership now reflects attendance rather than regular service reports, then the numbers go up. This can have the effect of making more Witnesses more enthusiastic about the organization. Remember how we used to hear announcements of increases in country after country at conventions and we'd clap and cheer. This year the only place they pointed to, so far, was the Philippines.
If anyone feels like a full member who didn't before, they might feel more inclined to contribute. It also can make for easier converts who might have previously been taken aback at this "salesmen's approach" to making converts. (If you don't know what I mean, look at some of the older publications referring to sales goals and book-selling campaigns, and compare it to any sales meetings from those days when it was popular for people to go door-to-door selling encyclopedias, vitamins, Amway, magazine subscriptions, Fuller Brush, vacuums, Mary Kay, snake oil, etc.)
There is also the more cynical view that there are a couple of countries that give the JWs a monetary "reward" based on the number of JWs in those countries. This is based on the idea that the religions tend to take some of the burden away from the government for charity, social events, child education, elderly care, weddings, funerals, etc.  
Therefore if a religion increases the number of members, they increase their government "reimbursement." Using a membership number closer to the Memorial attendance could be a financial boon in those countries.
A change in beard policy doesn't seem to fit very well. At best it might make a very few persons feel like "full members" when they didn't feel that way before. It could potentially allow more persons to more easily convert, and therefore more likely to contribute. 
I think we've all heard the rumors that the Organization is losing money, and this has driven the reduction in KH's all over the world. We have even heard it stated in videos on jw.org (not just leaked ones). I suspect a connection to lawsuits and potential lawsuits over sexual abuse, blood, and now shunning. But losing money could also just be based on over-optimism about video projects, and building projects, not the lawsuits. And I have seen no evidence that even that cynicism about number of members, and additional converts is true. 
I prefer to think that the Society just wanted to finally "get out of our hair" on this matter. Nit-picking over such details could stubble someone.  
 

I think that's a logical stretch, but I have heard similar ideas about the recent change to allow publishers to be counted even without any hourly goal to report. In an instant, it could bring up the number of publishers to include those who are just attending and rarely report. If membership now reflects attendance rather than regular service reports, then the numbers go up. This can have the effect of making more Witnesses more enthusiastic about the organization. Remember how we used to hear announcements of increases in country after country at conventions and we'd clap and cheer. This year the only place they pointed to, so far, was the Philippines.
If anyone feels like a full member who didn't before, they might feel more inclined to contribute. It also can make for easier converts who might have previously been taken aback at this "salesmen's approach" to making converts. (If you don't know what I mean, look at some of the older publications referring to sales goals and book-selling campaigns, and compare it to any sales meetings from those days when it was popular for people to go door-to-door selling encyclopedias, vitamins, Amway, magazine subscriptions, Fuller Brush, vacuums, Mary Kay, snake oil, etc.)
There is also the more cynical view that there are a couple of countries that give the JWs a monetary "reward" based on the number of JWs in those countries. This is based on the idea that the religions tend to take some of the burden away from the government for charity, social events, child education, elderly care, weddings, funerals, etc.  
Therefore if a religion increases the number of members, they increase their government "reimbursement." Using a membership number closer to the Memorial attendance could be a financial boon in those countries.
A change in beard policy doesn't seem to fit very well. At best it might make a very few persons feel like "full members" when they didn't feel that way before. It could potentially allow more persons to more easily convert, and therefore more likely to contribute. 
I think we've all heard the rumors that the Organization is losing money, and this has driven the reduction in KH's all over the world. We have even heard it stated in videos on jw.org (not just leaked ones). I suspect a connection to lawsuits and potential lawsuits over sexual abuse, blood, and now shunning. But losing money could also just be based on over-optimism about video projects, and building projects, not the lawsuits. And I have seen no evidence that even that cynicism about number of members, and additional converts is true. 
I prefer to think that the Society just wanted to finally "get out of our hair" on this matter. Nit-picking over such details could stubble someone.  
 

I think that's a logical stretch, but I have heard similar ideas about the recent change to allow publishers to be counted even without any hourly goal to report. In an instant, it could bring up the number of publishers to include those who are just attending and rarely report. If membership now reflects attendance rather than regular service reports, then the numbers go up. This can have the effect of making more Witnesses more enthusiastic about the organization. Remember how we used to hear announcements of increases in country after country at conventions and we'd clap and cheer. This year the only place they pointed to, so far, was the Philippines.
If anyone feels like a full member who didn't before, they might feel more inclined to contribute. It also can make for easier converts who might have previously been taken aback at this "salesmen's approach" to making converts. (If you don't know what I mean, look at some of the older publications referring to sales goals and book-selling campaigns, and compare it to any sales meetings from those days when it was popular for people to go door-to-door selling encyclopedias, vitamins, Amway, magazine subscriptions, Fuller Brush, vacuums, Mary Kay, snake oil, etc.)
There is also the more cynical view that there are a couple of countries that give the JWs a monetary "reward" based on the number of JWs in those countries. This is based on the idea that the religions tend to take some of the burden away from the government for charity, social events, child education, elderly care, weddings, funerals, etc.  
Therefore if a religion increases the number of members, they increase their government "reimbursement." Using a membership number closer to the Memorial attendance could be a financial boon in those countries.
A change in beard policy doesn't seem to fit very well. At best it might make a very few persons feel like "full members" when they didn't feel that way before. It could potentially allow more persons to more easily convert, and therefore more likely to contribute. 
I think we've all heard the rumors that the Organization is losing money, and this has driven the reduction in KH's all over the world. We have even heard it stated in videos on jw.org (not just leaked ones). I suspect a connection to lawsuits and potential lawsuits over sexual abuse, blood, and now shunning. But losing money could also just be based on over-optimism about video projects, and building projects, not the lawsuits. And I have seen no evidence that even that cynicism about number of members, and additional converts is true. 
I prefer to think that the Society just wanted to finally "get out of our hair" on this matter. Nit-picking over such details could stubble someone.  
 

Yeah. Not a bad answer—though you didn’t exactly suffer in silence like our Lord.
Occasionally I muse that my blog may also be read by someone who matters and goes on to make some great change on its account.
It may have just happened. My blog is all my personal writing. It has modest traffic. I’m happy with 70- 100 hits a day, which is more or less average.  In a recent 2-day period, however, it logged over 60,000 hits.
I was unsure what to make of this—or even it was a good thing. What gives?
Then I figured it out. It was @Many Miles, no doubt, downloading everything so that he could ponder over the weekend and realize the error of his ways.
If only it is followed up by an equal number of orders for my books, which are advertised with each post . . . 
https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com

I think the current GB realizes it has a compilation of messes on its hands that can only accrue problematically. It's trying to dig itself out. But the fear is the pile is too deep. Ultimately the 1914 thing will implode on itself. Just a matter of time. Ultimately the blood policy will implode on itself. Just a matter of time. I think the society is looking for an exit ramp. Too many problems, too many informational sources. It'll only snowball.

The thing is, that one thing I go back to, is not so much that the humans behind the organization have been brilliant, or their ideas were literally from Jehovah's mouth to their ears (or even what was imagined w/regard to those who imagine themselves to be anointed) is this: Jehovah uses organizations to accomplish his will and purposes. With all it's defects this particular organization has highlighted and stuck to many important fundamental points. No Trinity, no hellfire, the kingdom is a government, Jesus is the king of that government, the need to personally get on board with preaching personally. It was the only one annoying enough to get my attention back when I was an unhappy atheist. "1914? Are you kidding me? That's pretty specific. How did you get that?" It little matters to me now that certain things I'd expected didn't take place as I'd expected, or even as I was led to believe. The people I was introduced to were really different and different because THEY believed what they were saying. There was a personal cost to the individual to become one of Jehovah's Witnesses. One can't say that about most nominally Christian organizations. Disfellowshipping, as painful as it is and has been is a critical factor as well, though I disagree with it's use as a tool to silence those drawing attention to perceived or real failings. In the end it is and has served in my view, Jehovah's purposes, though I'll admit to believing that it is not the only one in history or even today to be doing so. I think of the dragnet illustration,and the organizations admission to be part of that dragnet, and I  believe that this is so, and though I couldn't attach myself to any other organization I still feel that it's up to each individual to work out his own salvation with fear and trembling (all the while I can't admit to so much trembling any more at this stage of my life, recognizing that I'm about as good as I can get right now and that's not so great either, so as the saying goes "so sue me" and "you can't get blood out of a turnip" if someone wants any more out of me. I trust Jehovah will deal with me justly (whatever that might be) and I'm OK with that). If a person feels that some other organization would better suit their spiritual growth, then they have the personal responsibility to go with them. I won't curse them if they choose to go even if that wouldn't be my choice.

What comes to mind as I ramble is "Greetings!  Consider it all joy, my brothers, when you meet with various trials, 3 knowing as you do that this tested quality of your faith produces endurance. But let endurance complete its work, so that you may be complete and sound in all respects, not lacking in anything..." James 1:2
People and organizations are like art. There's a proper viewing distance. Sometimes I see trees, sometimes I see the forest. Sometimes I see defects, and sometimes I see these as an opportunity.

In all this I look for Jehovah and to him and the guidance of his Son, and not to the humans who may or may not be moving in harmony with the Holy Spirit.
For some reason that also reminds me of this clip from "Enter the Dragon"
"Don't concentrate on the finger"