JW Insider

I have not made it a secret that I think we are currently hurtling toward the same problem we created for ourselves in the 1970's. Therefore, I think it's very important that we don't forget this part of our history, as we can learn from it. I think we learn just as much from the defensive attempts, like the one on "Defending Jehovah's Witnesses" linked above. In fact, I think the mistakes made back in the 1960's and early 1970's with respect to 1975 were very trivial compared to the lessons we can learn about our own egos, our pride and our honesty. Honesty is a form of faithfulness, and that's the only reason that this discussion might still be important to some of us today.
 

@JW Insider. Thanks for all the background on this.
So, as far as I can make out with this stuff, the 1969 published section in the Aid to Bible Understanding singled out, more or less, a generally held view (although not unanimous) that porneia as a ground for divorce referred to adulterous, heterosexual intercourse only. 
Dec 15 1972 Question from Readers (QfR). Porneia was expanded to include homosexual, extra-marital intercourse as divorce grounds for the innocent.
QfR 1973 introduces the idea that a third party is not necessary, and that forced unnatural intercourse on an innocent party would be classed as porneia and a grounds for divorce. (Presumably a disfellowshipping matter as well, but the subject of the 2 witness rule or proof is not discussed).
QfR 15 Feb 1978 directs elders not to get involved in trying to identify what does or does not constitute porneia between married couples within the marriage, due to a lack of Scriptural definition. Also that using such as a grounds for divorce by an innocent party should be left to that innocent party to decide and proceed with. (Maybe the 2 witness issue was a factor in this?)
WT 15 March 1983 turns it all on it's head! Porneia can only take place with a partner, (any oriented human or otherwise), external to the marriage relationship. Individuals divorced, remarried on the basis of previous erroneous advice are to be viewed as irreprehensible. Other words (akartharsia; alselgeia) are applied to perverted sexual intercourse within a marriage, but not porneia, which dictionary authorities and scholarly commentors define as only occurring with a party outside the marriage arrangement. (Judicial issues not discussed at any length).
Interestingly 15/12/12 QfR indicates that "when fertilization involving eggs or sperm (or both) from someone not within the marital union occurs, this amounts to what the Bible terms por·neiʹa, sexual immorality. Those procedures are a gross misuse of the sexual organs."
This last reference actually divorces the whole matter away from what is usually associated with illicit sexual behaviour, namely indulgence in illicit sexual gratification. It appears to focus more on a misuse of the life transmission processes. This would seem to be a vital core element of the reasons for Jehovah legislating around the whole matter..
Is that where we are on this now?
 

That's a good topic. It's been discussed here before. Perhaps someone can point to the place.

True. I remember that this topic came up once before a couple of years ago and I stayed out of it. But that woman, Anna, she kept dragging my name into it, and so I bit into the subject this time.
I am not exactly staying on topic as narrowly as it seems defined here. I speculated about marriages broken up over the Watchtower's counsel on this topic. The term "homosexual behavior," you will remember, was being used (during that time period) as a stand-in phrase for aberrant sexual practices between heterosexual married partners that could include anal or oral sex (AOS). Perhaps, I will use this made-up term "AOS" rather than spell it out. So, on the topic of breaking up marriages, consider, for example, that a sister might wish to obtain a divorce against a husband (believing or unbelieving) who insisted on AOS, during a time when the Service Department (and Branch) was inconsistent. If the sister obtained a divorce and remarried, she could be subject to disfellowshipping, even if the congregation had approved of her divorce. (In some countries, especially in unstable or "failed" states, the congregation was a better record-keeper of marriage/divorce than the state itself.)
This topic evidently came up much more often within heterosexual marriages, especially marriages between a believer and non-believer, when either the husband or wife wished to engage in AOS, and their partner did not wish to engage. Or both wished to engage and one or both ended up disfellowshipped. I handled more than one of these cases myself, and at the time, my wife knew of even more cases than those which came to the elders. These situations were evidently common, and the stress of perceived intrusion by the congregation and/or unscriptural legalism resulted in broken marriages, divorce, and questions about freedom to remarry, injustice, anger, and even disfellowshipping for unscriptural remarriage.
While I was at Bethel, a brother in Writing -- I won't name him because he's still alive -- complained to me that more unmarried, young people than ever were taking some recent counsel as permission to engage in oral sex.** He was somewhere between "livid" and "flabbergasted." I remember he said: "How can even a married couple think of doing this?!?! They know the angels are watching!" The idea of angels in a couple's bedroom was an odd image that stuck with me. At any rate, I know that this brother was involved in the actual writing of one of the corrections or clarifications of a previous view.
**Although this might seem impossible, I heard it stated to me directly by one of these persons in 1977, who had once believed it, but had come to his senses. He said that since 1974 with Armageddon around the corner, no one really knew for sure what lay ahead, and even if the Society was promising eternal marriages in perfect paradise, that, for all they knew, this might be the last chance to know what sex is like. And that this was a way to experience it without sinning to the extent of becoming "one flesh" with the other person. I'm not sure it will mean much to go through the history of these issues. But I'm willing to see if I can add anything to the conversation if anyone thinks it could be useful.

I believe many will perceive the story exactly as it's presented in the video. It was an end-date that was promoted by "some" rank & file JWs--publishers in congregations like yours and mine. The good JW in the video doesn't become tempted by this hysteria and sees that the Scriptures indicate no man knows the day or hour of Christ's coming. Those that left the org over the frenzy are easily written off as weak in faith.
It's an inaccurate depiction of events, because it leaves out one crucial thing. JWs didn't get the 1975 theory out of thin air. A frenzy generated by local brothers just doesn't make sense knowing what we do about the org. The enthusiasm was generated by the organization which promoted "Stay alive still '75!" and endorsed an Armageddon-prepping mentality in its literature. These JWs--now painted as negative examples--were doing exactly what we're admonished to do today: "Be loyal to the slave!" While our organization doesn't promote an end-date, it still expects unquestioned loyalty in other areas. Has the organization really changed its attitude that much from 1975? Have JWs really learned from it? Or are we destined to repeat it as a new generation rises up?
It's very weird to see a WT produced video that actually shows a JW questioning the direction of the organization against Scripture. It's clearly not framed that way in the video, but anyone with actual knowledge of the event knows that this person wasn't questioning "some" JWs in local congregations but the organization--those taking the lead! So, it's definitely an odd choice to show at a convention--especially when a lot of JWs lived through that era. I almost wonder if there was a version of the script that involved the organization, but during the production references to the org were specifically removed.

Yes and no. (Mostly no.) It was not so simple. There were multiple issues that arose and two separate corrections.
I don't think R.Franz has ever claimed to have written more than a few specific articles in the Aid Book, only mentioning a couple of them where he discusses the questions and research that was necessary for them. He had responsibility for starting and completing the Aid Book, but much of this was done by assigning hundreds of small articles to various Branch personnel worldwide who had some writing experience writing talks, yearbook experiences, Awake correspondent articles, translating publications, and handling branch correspondence. Major Bible-based articles in the Aid Book were mostly handled by a team of only about 5 brothers in Brooklyn - in Writing plus one Gilead Instructor. R.Franz became more of a collator, editor and "project manager" for the Aid Book.
It's true that there was a procedure to get all Writing approved, but remember that there was no Governing Body while this book was written and approved. Only one person among the corporate directors (a kind of proto-GB) would have had the say to approve or not. This was Fred Franz, and his eyesight was already poor and he was dictating many of his own articles and having a lot read to him (instead of reading it himself). I don't know if Lyman Swingle was supposed to read it before publication, I have heard it implied that he did. When I was in research, a GB member named Schroeder had not read it, and even asked me if I would read through it, looking for certain points he had in mind. About a dozen sisters read through assigned portions of it both for proofreading and so that the 1966-1970 Index (out in 1971) could include all the topics and scripture references for the full 1971 Aid Book (A through Z). We did not have electronic storage of it at that time. So, up to a greater point than some realize, R.Franz really was responsible for errors he made, too.
 

The Aid Book was the primary Bible study reference for all JWs until 1988, 29 years ago, but I'm guessing that 90% of the original articles stayed the same even in the Insight Book that replaced it in 1988. I'm sure there are people still alive whose marriages were broken up over the Watchtower's counsel on this topic. And perhaps there are some who are still alive who were disfellowshipped and should not have been, and some that should have been disciplined and were not, resulting in injustice. The basic issues and definitions that were once wrong on this topic were fixed relatively quickly, but this alone does not resolve the stress and loss and injustice that some suffered due to the short-lived "gaffe" in the Watchtower. The Bible acknowledges that injustice can have a bad effect not only on the person but even on their children and grandchildren.
I can't speak for J.R.Ewing JR, but I'd say you might have misunderstood the reason he presented the material he presented. I think he's one of Jehovah's Witnesses and that he was trying to defend the morality of JWs, both historically and currently. He was not, imo, trying to promote a non-Witness idea.

I think you are right. Fred Franz wrote a 1969 article that got much of these concerns started over the definition of "porneia," and this article started a number of judicial issues which were typically handled by the Service Department (Harley Miller, Merton Campbell, etc.) Believe it or not, Knorr and Fred Franz had very little input into congregational discipline issues from about 1968 to nearly 1980. Harley Miller was trusted to manage this through his team. He was the chief "executioner" in those days. Fred Franz was a prophecy specialist and the primary doctrines he took an interest in were related to fulfillment of prophecy. Nathan Knorr was a bureaucrat, whose work running a fast-growing organization left him with almost no time for anything else. With the only other active organizational officers like G.Suiter, L.Swingle, and M.Henschel, the g.b. only existed for corporate, bureaucratic functions like signing checks, buying presses, paper, property and ink, etc.
The governing body did not exist as a "body" or even a "committee" of any kind until 1971 when R.Franz, G.Gangas, L.Greenlees, and W.Jackson were added to the corporate-defined officers. But none of these men, not even Knorr, even in 1971 would have thought it possible to suggest a change in doctrine, which could have only fallen to F.Franz.
There became one exception to that rule, because one member of this new Governing Body was put there specifically because he had successfully completed the Aid Book, and a couple items from the Aid Book resulted in policy/doctrinal changes. One of those policy changes was the creation (in 1971) of the "elder arrangement" with committees, which by extension, resulted in the creation of the "Governing Body." But Franz, in his book, says that even then 1971-1974, he still would never had thought of suggesting a change in doctrine, and the initial meetings of the GB were not about spiritual matters, but just bureaucratic matters like rubber-stamping the sign-off on lists of names selected for full-time branch assignments and traveling overseers. But Knorr began bringing in some of the questionable disfellowshipping decisions (from Harley Miller and Merton Campbell, etc) and other Service Department issues. Most people didn't notice, but the Writing Department was still on a 20-year cycle (updating articles that had been printed approximately 20 years earlier, starting in the mid-1930's) with a lot more, new prophecy-related updates by F.Franz interspersed.
So the 1972 article was to be written as a defense of the current disfellowshippings by the Service Department, and R.Franz was given the assignment during a time when he still did not question the general doctrines. Remember that the Aid Book didn't even question our chronology even though R.Franz already should have known better based on all the contrary research they found while preparing that book. According to Franz it was not until between 1974 and 1976 when he realized that he disagreed with the rest of the Governing Body who voted that a sister was not free to get a divorce because her husband only had anal sex with another woman. The Governing Body's opinion was that oral or anal sex or bestiality on the part of the husband with other women (or animals) would not have freed her to remarry. At this point he was sure the other members had it wrong and when the policy finally changed, he says he was happy that he was also assigned to write the updated correction to the old ruling in 1976.  
 

I think you are right. Fred Franz wrote a 1969 article that got much of these concerns started over the definition of "porneia," and this article started a number of judicial issues which were typically handled by the Service Department (Harley Miller, Merton Campbell, etc.) Believe it or not, Knorr and Fred Franz had very little input into congregational discipline issues from about 1968 to nearly 1980. Harley Miller was trusted to manage this through his team. He was the chief "executioner" in those days. Fred Franz was a prophecy specialist and the primary doctrines he took an interest in were related to fulfillment of prophecy. Nathan Knorr was a bureaucrat, whose work running a fast-growing organization left him with almost no time for anything else. With the only other active organizational officers like G.Suiter, L.Swingle, and M.Henschel, the g.b. only existed for corporate, bureaucratic functions like signing checks, buying presses, paper, property and ink, etc.
The governing body did not exist as a "body" or even a "committee" of any kind until 1971 when R.Franz, G.Gangas, L.Greenlees, and W.Jackson were added to the corporate-defined officers. But none of these men, not even Knorr, even in 1971 would have thought it possible to suggest a change in doctrine, which could have only fallen to F.Franz.
There became one exception to that rule, because one member of this new Governing Body was put there specifically because he had successfully completed the Aid Book, and a couple items from the Aid Book resulted in policy/doctrinal changes. One of those policy changes was the creation (in 1971) of the "elder arrangement" with committees, which by extension, resulted in the creation of the "Governing Body." But Franz, in his book, says that even then 1971-1974, he still would never had thought of suggesting a change in doctrine, and the initial meetings of the GB were not about spiritual matters, but just bureaucratic matters like rubber-stamping the sign-off on lists of names selected for full-time branch assignments and traveling overseers. But Knorr began bringing in some of the questionable disfellowshipping decisions (from Harley Miller and Merton Campbell, etc) and other Service Department issues. Most people didn't notice, but the Writing Department was still on a 20-year cycle (updating articles that had been printed approximately 20 years earlier, starting in the mid-1930's) with a lot more, new prophecy-related updates by F.Franz interspersed.
So the 1972 article was to be written as a defense of the current disfellowshippings by the Service Department, and R.Franz was given the assignment during a time when he still did not question the general doctrines. Remember that the Aid Book didn't even question our chronology even though R.Franz already should have known better based on all the contrary research they found while preparing that book. According to Franz it was not until between 1974 and 1976 when he realized that he disagreed with the rest of the Governing Body who voted that a sister was not free to get a divorce because her husband only had anal sex with another woman. The Governing Body's opinion was that oral or anal sex or bestiality on the part of the husband with other women (or animals) would not have freed her to remarry. At this point he was sure the other members had it wrong and when the policy finally changed, he says he was happy that he was also assigned to write the updated correction to the old ruling in 1976.  
 

We'll probably have to stop a few people 'sodding pottage'!

I have to imagine that 1975 video was created with the intent to minimize the GB's role in promoting a failed end date. Which is definitely the worst blunder our organization has ever made. In the video, it is never the GB that promote the date but the average-Joe JWs. So, the blame is on them, not those taking the lead. That's just not honest history--more like revisionist history. And since many adult JWs did not experience 1975, they take the organization at their word. Now, they'll put the blame on those few "loonies" who went too far rather than the org which promoted the date in its literature heavily.

I think you are right. Fred Franz wrote a 1969 article that got much of these concerns started over the definition of "porneia," and this article started a number of judicial issues which were typically handled by the Service Department (Harley Miller, Merton Campbell, etc.) Believe it or not, Knorr and Fred Franz had very little input into congregational discipline issues from about 1968 to nearly 1980. Harley Miller was trusted to manage this through his team. He was the chief "executioner" in those days. Fred Franz was a prophecy specialist and the primary doctrines he took an interest in were related to fulfillment of prophecy. Nathan Knorr was a bureaucrat, whose work running a fast-growing organization left him with almost no time for anything else. With the only other active organizational officers like G.Suiter, L.Swingle, and M.Henschel, the g.b. only existed for corporate, bureaucratic functions like signing checks, buying presses, paper, property and ink, etc.
The governing body did not exist as a "body" or even a "committee" of any kind until 1971 when R.Franz, G.Gangas, L.Greenlees, and W.Jackson were added to the corporate-defined officers. But none of these men, not even Knorr, even in 1971 would have thought it possible to suggest a change in doctrine, which could have only fallen to F.Franz.
There became one exception to that rule, because one member of this new Governing Body was put there specifically because he had successfully completed the Aid Book, and a couple items from the Aid Book resulted in policy/doctrinal changes. One of those policy changes was the creation (in 1971) of the "elder arrangement" with committees, which by extension, resulted in the creation of the "Governing Body." But Franz, in his book, says that even then 1971-1974, he still would never had thought of suggesting a change in doctrine, and the initial meetings of the GB were not about spiritual matters, but just bureaucratic matters like rubber-stamping the sign-off on lists of names selected for full-time branch assignments and traveling overseers. But Knorr began bringing in some of the questionable disfellowshipping decisions (from Harley Miller and Merton Campbell, etc) and other Service Department issues. Most people didn't notice, but the Writing Department was still on a 20-year cycle (updating articles that had been printed approximately 20 years earlier, starting in the mid-1930's) with a lot more, new prophecy-related updates by F.Franz interspersed.
So the 1972 article was to be written as a defense of the current disfellowshippings by the Service Department, and R.Franz was given the assignment during a time when he still did not question the general doctrines. Remember that the Aid Book didn't even question our chronology even though R.Franz already should have known better based on all the contrary research they found while preparing that book. According to Franz it was not until between 1974 and 1976 when he realized that he disagreed with the rest of the Governing Body who voted that a sister was not free to get a divorce because her husband only had anal sex with another woman. The Governing Body's opinion was that oral or anal sex or bestiality on the part of the husband with other women (or animals) would not have freed her to remarry. At this point he was sure the other members had it wrong and when the policy finally changed, he says he was happy that he was also assigned to write the updated correction to the old ruling in 1976.  
 

Actually, just a little reminder, problems with any sexual abuse, including child sexual abuse, in the whole wide world started with Satan. People just didn’t take any real records of child rape before 50 years ago. The same with adult rape. It was never addressed until quite recently with the 1988 movie the Accused. That movie brought the issue into the public limelight. As for third world countries, and Islamic states, rape victims, whether adult or children, are still battling to get justice and recognition.
Wikipedia: “In the 1980s, date or acquaintance rape first gained acknowledgment. Rape crisis centers were created to serve survivors of all forms of sexual violence during any phase of their healing process. Rape crisis centers and other community-based service providers continue to grow and serve their communities by providing direct services and prevention programming.”
and
“In 1986, Congress passed the Child Abuse Victims' Rights Act, giving children a civil claim in sexual abuse cases. The number of laws created in the 1980s and 1990s began to create greater prosecution and detection of child sexual abusers”.
Anne Hastings described these changes in attitudes towards child sexual abuse as "the beginning of one of history's largest social revolutions.
According to John Jay College of Criminal Justice professor B.J. Cling,
"By the early 21st century, the issue of child sexual abuse has become a legitimate focus of professional attention, while increasingly separated from second wave feminism...As child sexual abuse becomes absorbed into the larger field of interpersonal trauma studies, child sexual abuse studies and intervention strategies have become degendered and largely unaware of their political origins in modern feminism and other vibrant political movements of the 1970s. One may hope that unlike in the past, this rediscovery of child sexual abuse that began in the 70s will not again be followed by collective amnesia. The institutionalization of child maltreatment interventions in federally funded centers, national and international societies, and a host of research studies (in which the United States continues to lead the world) offers grounds for cautious optimism. Nevertheless, as Judith Herman argues cogently, 'The systematic study of psychological trauma...depends on the support of a political movement".
Not only Wikipedia articles but all others on this subject recognize that historically, sex crimes have not been addressed in any significant detail by secular authorities or courts of law until the recent decades, and are still not at their optimum effectiveness to this date, that’s why the recent government research into Child sexual abuse in various countries. One of the main reason for those investigations is to determine gaps in the government’s own policies and procedures, not just the policies and procedures in individual institutions.
Perhaps it would be a good idea for those who criticize the WT for the way they handled Child abuse in the past, to educate  themselves on how the rest of the world handled child abuse in the past.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse
 

This was a bit tongue-in-cheek. I was havin' a laugh (or in this case "having a loaf" as one of your UK ads says it.) But here goes:
There are about 365 days in a year. So all disfellowshippings take place between 0 and 365 days after the Memorial. The average amount of time is therefore 365/2, which is 182.5 days. Just to allow for some unpredictable skewing, and to be a little more conservative, and because the word "most" is technically at least 50.0001%, I pretended that the year has two extra weeks, so that the average would be 380/2 which is 190 days.
So it was no different than saying that about half of all disfellowshippings will take place during a six-month period, on average. Saying on average, should make the estimate even a bit more conservative, since some years all of a congregation's disfellowshippings might take place towards Winter, but in other years all of them might take place closer to Summer.
It should always be the case that a disfellowshipping is either 182.5 (or 183) days before or after a Memorial because this will cover the entire year, although I left out the word "on average" here which would have better accounted for the times when one Memorial is in March but the following year's Memorial is in April. Still, if, on average, all events (DF'ing or anything else) take place either 182.5 days before or after a Memorial, then the average amount of days that these events take place on EITHER side of a Memorial is 91.25 days (182.5/2) or 91.375 accounting for leap years. I rounded this to 90 instead of 91.375.**
** In my own experience in about 6 congregations from Californian, Missouri and New York, there is a strong skewing toward summer disfellowshippings, and some of this might even be related to the reminders all the elders get in the "season" of extra shepherding visits encouraged just before the Memorial, and the follow-ups just after. This helps my numbers by a few decimal points, but is unnecessary where I said "average." 
At any rate, after correcting the 90 to 91.375, I stand by these numbers, on average.

Nothing surprising really. I find the aroma of my husband's cooking "sacrifice" very pleasing too!

Curiously, the nation of Israel was also asked to celebrate the harvest with its attendant rites, offering up the first sheaf of wheat to Jehovah.
(Exodus 34:22,26) 22 “And you will celebrate your Festival of Weeks with the first ripe fruits of the wheat harvest, and the Festival of Ingathering [Harvest] at the turn of the year. . . . 26 “The best of the first ripe fruits of your soil you are to bring to the house of Jehovah your God. Two of the three primary holy festivals were Harvest festivals:
(Exodus 23:15-17) . . .. 16 Also, you are to observe the Festival of Harvest of the first ripe fruits of your labors, of what you sow in the field; and the Festival of Ingathering at the end of the year, when you gather in from the field the results of your labors. 17 Three times a year all your men are to appear before the true Lord, Jehovah. Many in Israel confused this with the same rites that others followed and offered these not just to Jehovah, but according to some of the earliest mentions of Jehovah's name in Hebrew archaeology: Jehovah and his Astoret (Astarte/Ashtoreth).
Some of the "attendant rituals" for the harvest holiday periods included the following:
(Leviticus 2:12-16) 12 “‘You may present them to Jehovah as an offering of the firstfruits, but they must not be brought to the altar as a pleasing aroma. 13 “‘Every grain offering you make is to be seasoned with salt; and you must not allow the salt of the covenant of your God to be missing from your grain offering. Along with every offering of yours, you will present salt. 14 “‘If you present the grain offering of the first ripe fruits to Jehovah, you should present new grain roasted with fire, coarsely crushed new kernels, as the grain offering of your first ripe fruits. 15 You are to put oil on it and place frankincense on it. It is a grain offering. 16 The priest will make it smoke as a token offering, that is, some of the coarse grain and oil along with all its frankincense, as an offering made by fire to Jehovah. (Leviticus 23:9-21) 9 Jehovah continued to speak to Moses, saying: 10 “Speak to the Israelites and tell them, ‘When you eventually come into the land that I am giving you and you have reaped its harvest, you must bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest to the priest. 11 And he will wave the sheaf back and forth before Jehovah to gain approval for you. The priest should wave it on the day after the Sabbath. . . .  13 Its grain offering will be two tenths of an eʹphah of fine flour mixed with oil, as an offering made by fire to Jehovah, a pleasing aroma. Its drink offering will be a fourth of a hin of wine. 14 You must not eat any bread, roasted grain, or new grain until this day, until you bring the offering of your God. It is a lasting statute for all your generations wherever you dwell. 15 “‘You are to count seven sabbaths from the day after the Sabbath, from the day that you bring the sheaf of the wave offering. They should be complete weeks. 16 You will count off 50 days until the day after the seventh Sabbath, and then you should present a new grain offering to Jehovah. 17 You should bring from your dwelling places two loaves as a wave offering. These should be made of two tenths of an eʹphah of fine flour. They should be baked with leaven, as first ripe fruits to Jehovah. . . . They will serve as a burnt offering to Jehovah along with the corresponding grain offering and drink offerings, as an offering made by fire, of a pleasing aroma to Jehovah. . . . They should serve as something holy to Jehovah for the priest. 21 On this day you will make a proclamation for a holy convention for yourselves. You may not do any hard work. It is a lasting statute in all your dwelling places for all your generations.
 
Even more curiously, I am re-reading the Iliad -- a brand new non-poetic translation that does not attempt the fake, stilted language that was never part of the original, but which is always loved by academics and scholars. There are many more points of similarity between Greek and Hebrew religion than I had noticed previously. The most common point of similarity that people point out is the fact that Jehovah finds the aroma of sacrifice pleasing and so do the Greek gods. There are other points of similarity I hadn't noticed until now. (A later post, perhaps.)

I have noticed that as yet, nobody has attempted to answer any of the very valid questions and points you raise. Is this perhaps because there is no foolproof answer? I have heard many times Christendom say that certain unexplained matters are a matter of faith. That is why religion is a faith based organization. While I don't subscribe to the way they use this explanation (because it's more blind faith) we do have to have faith that Jehovah will surely not allow any lasting harm to come to anyone that serves him out of a complete heart.
I for one, appreciate your honesty.  I think we are all a work in progress in one way or another (including the GB). Always learning new things. This is why I posted this particular topic, because it is something that I wondered about, you may not be too bothered about it, you may have something else on your mind. I think most of us, if we are honest, have some topic that we do not see eye to eye. But rarely do we make a public fuss and tend to ride it out, wait on Jehovah and see what happens.
And also as @Gone Fishing pointed out Matthew 25: 34-40 “Then the King will say to those on his right: ‘Come, you who have been blessed by my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the founding of the world.   For I became hungry and you gave me something to eat; I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger and you received me hospitably;   naked and you clothed me. I fell sick and you looked after me. I was in prison and you visited me.’ Then the righteous ones will answer him with the words: ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?When did we see you a stranger and receive you hospitably, or naked and clothe you?  When did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’  In reply the King will say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’"  Jesus tells us that supporting his brothers, which applies to the anointed, so the GB included (and by extension to all of us) is very important. This of course does not mean we will support something we believe is scripturally wrong.  Br. Jackson also  alluded to the fact that it is each individual's responsibility to "make sure" when he made this statement at the ARC, I quote: ": “Now, the Governing Body realises that if we were to give some direction that is not in harmony with God's word, all of Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide who have the Bible would notice that and they would see that it was wrong direction”.  @JW Insider made some good points in his comment regarding producing versus sharing/distributing spiritual food. There is nothing the GB can add to the Bible all we can do is share its message effectively, which can include using Bible aids.
This brings us to the notorious question of interpretation, but by our baptism, didn’t we agree with the interpretation? But also I think it has definitely to do with faith. We had faith that what we were learning was the best interpretation we had heard.  Hebrews ch 11 gives examples of all those who followed Jehovah’s instructions because they had faith "in things not yet seen". Abraham didn't even witness some of the things he was promised.  
This is not strictly true according to Br. Jackson:
Q.   And do you see yourselves as Jehovah God's spokespeople on earth?  
Br. Jackson.:  That I think would seem to be quite presumptuous to say that we are the only spokesperson that God is using. The scriptures clearly show that someone can act in harmony with God's spirit in giving comfort and help in the congregations, but if I could just clarify a little, going back to Matthew 24, clearly, Jesus said that in the last days - and Jehovah's Witnesses believe these are the last days - there would be a slave, a group of persons who would have responsibility to care for the spiritual food.  So in that respect, we view ourselves as trying to fulfill that role.
also:
Q.   And the definitive interpretation of the Bible from time to time is the Governing Body; is that right?
 Br. Jackson: Ultimately, as guardians of our doctrine and beliefs, yes, some central group needs to make that decision, but that doesn't mean to say that we are just on our own   uunilaterally making those decisions without research and input from others.
also
Q.   I take it, too, that the state of knowledge about the
scriptures and, in particular, historical knowledge about
scriptures, also improves or increases from time to time?
 Br. Jackson:  That is correct.  But there are some basic things in
 the Bible that have not changed right from the beginnings
 of the Jehovah's Witness religion, and I won't take your
  time, obviously, going through those, but it is important
  to realise what are basic things in the Bible.  For
  example, is the Bible from God?  There is no possibility of
  us changing our viewpoint on that" end of quotes
 
It is those basic things that I think we can all agree on. They are the backbone of our faith/religion. As for those other things, we may have our opinion, without causing any upset, provided we don't go and harass other people about them or try and make them see it our way.
Sorry, I am going to have to continue this later....
 
 
 
 
 
 

@AnnaWell I know you probably mean this: "I am not thinking this is a sinister or underhanded way to over assert authority," but when you then say this: "insinuating our prime motive for obedience is to survive Armageddon", to use the word insinuating is a bit confusing to me in view of it's meaning. I definitely do not think the GB are making such an insinuation which would sound remarkably similar to the one made at Job 2:4. And I am sure you do not think that either.
You have raised a lot of logistical questions here regarding Armageddon survival strategies, but my feeling is that behavioural strategies are what are required more than anything at this time. The logistical stuff comes later and I am sure the GB will know how to delegate in this area according to local need. And I don't think one has to have a particularly sophisticated view of things in order to work that out.
Coincidentally, a couple of days ago some were discussing this very matter regarding Is. 26:20, around the role of Kingdom Halls in providing protection. Some rather narrow-minded views were expressed, but one older sister just casually remarked, "well it can't be about literally hiding in Kingdom Halls because they haven't got any in Russia, and anyway by that time they might be shut down all over the place" Everybody agreed that whatever means of protection Jehovah will provide, we'll have to be obedient to his instructions then, just like we are now, and any strangeness about those instructions will probably be in comparison to what those who don't trust Jehovah are doing at the time. (Compare 1Cor.1:25: "Because a foolish thing of God is wiser than men"). Wonder what Egyptians would have thought about what the Israelites were doing with sheep's blood on the night of the Passover, (if any were aware)? Ex.12:7.
By behavioural instructions that seem strange, I mean ones based on, for example, Matt 5:29 "Do not resist the one who is wicked, but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other also to him." This is the kind of "strange " instruction that is going to lead to salvation, not tenting out in what's left of the Kingdom Hall car park! Or skulking through the countryside with grab-bags full of beef jerky, wind up torches, and bottles of water! (Although, who knows?).
Rest assured, "Jehovah knows how to rescue people of godly devotion out of trial, " 2Pet.2:9. It's working now through our obedience to the advice and counsel we receive. We have no reason to believe it will not continue.

Quite, Especially as Ps 24:1 includes it!. This man made a better job:
 

True. Thanks for pointing that out. Psalm 23's omission of the divine name was especially glaring. I think that the following must include the portion of the preface that you referred to:
 
 

Alas! As with so many facets of life, even the value of the Bible as a printed book has sometimes been eclipsed by the value put on of a book of science. Wikipedia (linked from a Wikipedia article about the Bay Psalter)
The Codex Leicester (also briefly known as Codex Hammer) is a collection of famous scientific writings by Leonardo da Vinci. The Codex is named after Thomas Coke, later created Earl of Leicester, who purchased it in 1719. Of Leonardo's 30 scientific journals, the Codex may be the most famous of all. The manuscript currently holds the record for the second highest sale price of any book, as it was sold to Bill Gates at Christie's auction house on 11 November 1994 in New York for US$30,802,500 (equivalent to $49,772,200 in 2016).[1][2][3]

True. Thanks for pointing that out. Psalm 23's omission of the divine name was especially glaring. I think that the following must include the portion of the preface that you referred to:
 
 

True. Thanks for pointing that out. Psalm 23's omission of the divine name was especially glaring. I think that the following must include the portion of the preface that you referred to:
 
 

Just got back home. Anything happen while I was out?

My uncle was a circuit overseer in the traveling work for many years, and more recently had only served as a temporary circuit overseer due to his age. His wife (my aunt) also received one of these letters. I would guess that about 5,000 of these letters went out worldwide, and the chances that several of them would arrive at the right time for it was clearly very good. Many circuit overseer's wives find the lifestyle very difficult.