JW Insider

I do get warm feelies here. I don't think that's a bad thing. (I don't mean here, with @The Librarianand all; I mean in Jehovah's organization)
I am like most Witnesses who do not have to have every single duck lined up to declare this the truth. Actually, every duck is lined up, but I will concede there are a few chicks that have yet to straighten out and fly right - they being chicks.
@JW Insiderhas listed the main ducks, and he has appended a few more. In response to someone asking why I remain a Witness when bad things happen in the organization, I have written some additional reasons:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/42302-why-remain-a-witness-when-bad-things-happen/
Each of these desirable tenets is rare today. The combination of them in one faith is unique to Jehovah's Witnesses and that is why I have chosen the faith and am not likely to leave, especially for the greater world described in the last post. If you think your glorious freedom to engage your critical thinking without check has resulted in such a wonderful world, you are welcome to remain there.
When one has assembled the jigsaw puzzle and reproduced the box cover mountain vista, you are not easily put off by the critic who insists you have it all wrong. This is especially true if his own puzzle lies unassembled in the box.

Not the first one. That could never be a Watchtower picture. I worked in the Art Department during my first few years at Bethel. There are several things wrong with this first picture. It would have been "blasphemy" to present a picture like that into any of the publications. 
Since the 1940's we have always kept the same "motif." If destruction is shown close-up, then there are NEVER any Witnesses near the destruction. (No "close calls" can be imagined.) It if is not a close-up of destruction, then the destruction must be in the far background, usually to the left, and if Witnesses are shown it is always a congregation-sized group of them, never just one or a few, and they should be streaming towards the right of the picture. The stream of Witnesses should be heading to higher ground ("the mountain of Jehovah") with no one looking back towards the destruction ("remember the wife of Lot"). If an artist made a picture with excess praise to the heavens it would be rejected. If an artist made a picture with a distracting bit of excess emotion or pathos it would be rejected. The eyes should be on something in front of them, with no eyes looking toward Jehovah or heaven. Upward-facing eyes should never be looking at anything higher than a mountaintop of a near horizon, usually out of the picture.
The picture here is probably intended to show the issue of "some chosen and some not." The wife and little girl are drawn ambiguously at the edge of a cliff, either having just climbed up or about to fall into it. Either way they are not being helped (yet) by the more obvious "saved" Christian. The "ambiguous" condition of people who might otherwise appear to be good Christians is a common theme in "left behind" imagery.  The inclusion of a small, innocent-looking child (with a doll) left behind is probably a signal that the artist is trying to present predestination.
 
:

(Acts 15:19, 20) 19 Therefore, my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God, 20 but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from what is strangled, and from blood. Note that it doesn't say abstain from idolatry, murder, and theft, but focuses first on "things polluted by idols." Thayer's Greek Lexicon says that the word  ἀλίσγημα here, refers to "pollution from the use of meats left from the heathen sacrifices." Obviously this meat could have been strangled, or otherwise improperly bled, and therefore contained blood. So 3 out of 4 counts from the "burden" could have been broken just by eating ἀλίσγημα.
In fact the NWT footnote on the word strangled shows that this isn't really the only idea here. It says "Or, 'what is killed without draining its blood.'" When the "burden" is repeated in verse 29, the intention is obviously the same:
(Acts 15:29) 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. . . . But this time the word "pollution" (implying the ritual uncleanness of the meat) is made even clearer by using the word εἰδωλόθυτος, which is translated as "meats sacrificed to idols" in some translations (KJV) or just "things sacrificed to idols." All the meat-related items are now listed next to each other and sexual immorality is pushed to the end. Notice that the NWT cross-references both "things polluted by idols" and "things sacrificed to idols" with the verse at 1 Corinthians 10:14 which says "flee from idolatry." But the verse isn't about idolatry, it's about abstaining from improperly bled meat which could be bought at a Gentile meat market. Would Gentile Christians now have to go to a Jewish meat market to get their meat? Would they have to inquire as to whether something had been strangled or otherwise bled improperly?
Just look down from 1 Cor 10:14 to verse 25-27
(1 Corinthians 10:25-27) Eat whatever is sold in a meat market, making no inquiry because of your conscience, . . .  27 If an unbeliever invites you and you want to go, eat whatever is set before you, making no inquiry on account of your conscience. In fact it was only if someone else with a weaker conscience was there and pointed out:
(1 Corinthians 10:28, 29) 28 But if anyone says to you, “This is something offered in sacrifice,” do not eat because of the one who told you and because of conscience. 29 I do not mean your own conscience, but that of the other person. . . . And you can probably guess, now, what the Greek word was for "something offered in sacrifice." It was the exact same word that the "Governing Body" at Jerusalem put in the "burden:" εἰδωλόθυτος. So what do you think Paul was saying about the 3 meat-related items in the list?
And we don't have any evidence that Paul only said this before the Jerusalem council met, but would have complied afterwards. It was more likely already about 6 years after. For one thing the Insight book times Acts 15 to about 49 CE. And it times 1 Corinthians to about 55 CE.
*** it-1 p. 257 Barnabas *** In about 49 C.E., Barnabas and Paul took the burning question of circumcision of non-Jews up to the governing body in Jerusalem, and with that settled, they were soon back in Antioch preparing for their next missionary tour. (Ac 15:2-36) *** nwt p. 1663 Table of the Books of the Bible *** 1 Corinthians      Paul     Ephesus     c. 55[C.E.] Paul, therefore, appears to have knocked out two or three items from the very list that came from the "Governing Body." And I don't think Paul was ever disfellowshipped for this.

It's not that simple. I believe that if persons completely agree with the doctrines of a religion, that they wouldn't be at all concerned that a "governing body" was helping to guide the decisions of that religion. Therefore, I'm sure that most people who speak out against the concept among Jehovah's Witnesses are primarily speaking out against the doctrines that are promoted through this governing body.
So I do believe that the Jerusalem Council acted in a very similar capacity to the Governing Body in several of its current activities and services.  
I don't favor the terms "governing body" or even "elder body"/"body of elders". I don't believe there is any "body" within the "body of Christ" which is his whole congregation. And "governors" is pretty much the opposite of the idea at 2 Cor 1:24
(2 Corinthians 1:24) 24 Not that we are the masters over your faith, but we are fellow workers for your joy, for it is by your faith that you are standing. That said, I cannot say that I find anything wrong with the service of such a body of elders who handle matters for the entire worldwide congregation, any more than I would find anything wrong with the service of such a body of elders in any local congregation. (Or even an ad hoc committee of elders from multiple congregations if a situation warrants that.) As a large group performing a worldwide activity, we will always find ourselves in need of decisions that no one person could easily make, especially because that one person might not be in a position to hear input from everyone. Remember Jethro's counsel to Moses about appointing capable men as chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens.
One brother at Bethel, who was defending the leadership style of Rutherford at the time, likened it to picking a carpet color for the Kingdom Hall. If everyone showed perfect love and humility, then everyone would want to unselfishly defer that decision to someone else, and no one would decide. But there are always some who are willing to just decide. These may not come across as the most loving and humble, but they are necessary to the efficient running of a large enterprise among an association of persons.
In Jerusalem, I think it was initially a local problem, a problem started by the Jerusalem congregation, so that made it appropriate for the Jerusalem congregation to decide what they ought to do to fix their own mess. They discussed it and asked for the holy spirit to guide them. It was a body of respected elders, associated with, but not equal to, the apostles who had recently devoted themselves to matters of teaching and studying. This is surely a useful model for something like the group we call the "governing body." Questions come up on a wide scale and centralized direction on these issues is a welcome service.
The problem, of course, is not the idea of "service" but with the "authority." This is surely what Jesus meant when he said:
(Matthew 23:10-12) 10 Neither be called leaders, for your Leader is one, the Christ. 11 But the greatest one among you must be your minister. 12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted. Of course, Paul wanted to make sure that no one thought these particular men in Jerusalem had some kind of "authority" such that he was commissioned by them, or took assignments just because of them, or accepted their word as law. But he showed respect and followed their counsel to the extent that he could. (See Galatians & 1st and 2nd Corinthians, in general.) I don't think he would have gone to such lengths to diminish the appearance of authority of the Jerusalem council if there wasn't some kind of "appearance of authority" that seemed obvious and even correct to most Christians at the time.
In 2013 the NWT changed the word "tutor" to "guardian" in a few places, and the GB began describing their own role as "guardians of doctrine" with its ill-advised acronym. And this resulted in 1 Cor 4:15-17 offering the following idea:
(1 Corinthians 4:15-17) 15 For though you may have 10,000 guardians in Christ, you certainly do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus, I have become your father through the good news. 16 I urge you, therefore, become imitators of me. 17 That is why I am sending Timothy to you, because he is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord. He will remind you of my methods in connection with Christ Jesus, just as I am teaching everywhere in every congregation. Paul saw himself as a kind of "father" in spite of Jesus words that no one is to be called "father" as a title of authority. So he clearly didn't mean it as a title but as a reminder of his love and concern and guidance. But just as important is that the Law had been a guardian or tutor leading to Christ, but now there were at least 10,000 Christians in the overall "world-wide" organization of the time, and all of them were guardians. (Based on the number of baptisms mentioned in Acts.)
Paul looked for a way to get his methods and teaching spread, not just for initial conversion to Christianity, but to remind current Christians in each and every congregation of the proper methods and teaching. But note that all Christians were guardians of each other, or tutors of each other. The role of guardian is not therefore a position of "authority." But there is a "service" that such a committee of elders can provide. For the most part I see them trying to fill this role. I also think they try, at present, to go beyond that role into a role of governing or authority.

It's not that simple. I believe that if persons completely agree with the doctrines of a religion, that they wouldn't be at all concerned that a "governing body" was helping to guide the decisions of that religion. Therefore, I'm sure that most people who speak out against the concept among Jehovah's Witnesses are primarily speaking out against the doctrines that are promoted through this governing body.
So I do believe that the Jerusalem Council acted in a very similar capacity to the Governing Body in several of its current activities and services.  
I don't favor the terms "governing body" or even "elder body"/"body of elders". I don't believe there is any "body" within the "body of Christ" which is his whole congregation. And "governors" is pretty much the opposite of the idea at 2 Cor 1:24
(2 Corinthians 1:24) 24 Not that we are the masters over your faith, but we are fellow workers for your joy, for it is by your faith that you are standing. That said, I cannot say that I find anything wrong with the service of such a body of elders who handle matters for the entire worldwide congregation, any more than I would find anything wrong with the service of such a body of elders in any local congregation. (Or even an ad hoc committee of elders from multiple congregations if a situation warrants that.) As a large group performing a worldwide activity, we will always find ourselves in need of decisions that no one person could easily make, especially because that one person might not be in a position to hear input from everyone. Remember Jethro's counsel to Moses about appointing capable men as chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens.
One brother at Bethel, who was defending the leadership style of Rutherford at the time, likened it to picking a carpet color for the Kingdom Hall. If everyone showed perfect love and humility, then everyone would want to unselfishly defer that decision to someone else, and no one would decide. But there are always some who are willing to just decide. These may not come across as the most loving and humble, but they are necessary to the efficient running of a large enterprise among an association of persons.
In Jerusalem, I think it was initially a local problem, a problem started by the Jerusalem congregation, so that made it appropriate for the Jerusalem congregation to decide what they ought to do to fix their own mess. They discussed it and asked for the holy spirit to guide them. It was a body of respected elders, associated with, but not equal to, the apostles who had recently devoted themselves to matters of teaching and studying. This is surely a useful model for something like the group we call the "governing body." Questions come up on a wide scale and centralized direction on these issues is a welcome service.
The problem, of course, is not the idea of "service" but with the "authority." This is surely what Jesus meant when he said:
(Matthew 23:10-12) 10 Neither be called leaders, for your Leader is one, the Christ. 11 But the greatest one among you must be your minister. 12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted. Of course, Paul wanted to make sure that no one thought these particular men in Jerusalem had some kind of "authority" such that he was commissioned by them, or took assignments just because of them, or accepted their word as law. But he showed respect and followed their counsel to the extent that he could. (See Galatians & 1st and 2nd Corinthians, in general.) I don't think he would have gone to such lengths to diminish the appearance of authority of the Jerusalem council if there wasn't some kind of "appearance of authority" that seemed obvious and even correct to most Christians at the time.
In 2013 the NWT changed the word "tutor" to "guardian" in a few places, and the GB began describing their own role as "guardians of doctrine" with its ill-advised acronym. And this resulted in 1 Cor 4:15-17 offering the following idea:
(1 Corinthians 4:15-17) 15 For though you may have 10,000 guardians in Christ, you certainly do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus, I have become your father through the good news. 16 I urge you, therefore, become imitators of me. 17 That is why I am sending Timothy to you, because he is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord. He will remind you of my methods in connection with Christ Jesus, just as I am teaching everywhere in every congregation. Paul saw himself as a kind of "father" in spite of Jesus words that no one is to be called "father" as a title of authority. So he clearly didn't mean it as a title but as a reminder of his love and concern and guidance. But just as important is that the Law had been a guardian or tutor leading to Christ, but now there were at least 10,000 Christians in the overall "world-wide" organization of the time, and all of them were guardians. (Based on the number of baptisms mentioned in Acts.)
Paul looked for a way to get his methods and teaching spread, not just for initial conversion to Christianity, but to remind current Christians in each and every congregation of the proper methods and teaching. But note that all Christians were guardians of each other, or tutors of each other. The role of guardian is not therefore a position of "authority." But there is a "service" that such a committee of elders can provide. For the most part I see them trying to fill this role. I also think they try, at present, to go beyond that role into a role of governing or authority.

We already know from other scriptures that Jesus became king in 33 C.E. John 6:15 does not contradict the rest of the Bible at all.  As you know, John 6:15 says the following, along with a bit of context:
(John 6:12-17) 12 But when they had eaten their fill, he said to his disciples: “Gather together the fragments left over, so that nothing is wasted.” 13 So they gathered them together and filled 12 baskets with fragments left over by those who had eaten from the five barley loaves. 14 When the people saw the sign he performed, they began to say: “This really is the Prophet who was to come into the world.” 15 Then Jesus, knowing that they were about to come and seize him to make him king, withdrew again to the mountain all alone. 16 When evening fell, his disciples went down to the sea, 17 and boarding a boat, they set out across the sea for Ca·perʹna·um. By now it had grown dark, and Jesus had not yet come to them.
This particular crowd may have wanted to make him king based on the fact that he could provide earthly things, such as food, and as you already pointed out, we know that Jesus would later say, in John 18:
(John 18:36, 37) . . .“My Kingdom is no part of this world. If my Kingdom were part of this world, my attendants would have fought that I should not be handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my Kingdom is not from this source.” 37 So Pilate said to him: “Well, then, are you a king?” Jesus answered: “You yourself are saying that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, . . .
Also, notice that Jesus did not condemn a different crowd who would also declare him king, and Jesus even helped set up the scenario:
(Matthew 21:1-9) 21 When they got close to Jerusalem and arrived at Bethʹpha·ge on the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, 2 saying to them: “Go into the village that is within sight, and you will at once find a donkey tied and a colt with her. Untie them and bring them to me. 3 If someone says anything to you, you must say, ‘The Lord needs them.’ At that he will immediately send them.” 4 This actually took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet, who said: 5 “Tell the daughter of Zion: ‘Look! Your king is coming to you, mild-tempered and mounted on a donkey, yes, on a colt, the offspring of a beast of burden.’” 6 So the disciples went and did just as Jesus had instructed them. 7 They brought the donkey and its colt, and they put their outer garments on them, and he sat on them. 8 Most of the crowd spread their outer garments on the road, while others were cutting down branches from the trees and spreading them on the road. 9 Moreover, the crowds going ahead of him and those following him kept shouting: “Save, we pray, the Son of David! Blessed is the one who comes in Jehovah’s name! Save him, we pray, in the heights above!”
This is a low-cost version of what the people of that time period termed a "PAROUSIA." As the New World Translation Appendix stated:
*** Rbi8 p. 1577 5B Christ’s Presence (Parousia) ***
Also, Bauer, p. 630, states that pa·rou·siʹa “became the official term for a visit of a person of high rank, esp[ecially] of kings and emperors visiting a province.”
This type of royal visitation (parousia) often took the form of a parade with joyous crowds and fanfare. Of course, to a disobedient province, such a visitation (parousia) could also include a display of judgment against enemies of the state.
This is mostly true. Russell used the name Watch Tower for the primary corporation for nearly 40 years, incorporated officially for more than 30 of those years. The People's Pulpit, of course, was just an alternative name for the purpose of owning property in New York that the Pennsylvania corporation hadn't been set up for. (It could have been expanded for that purpose, but Russell had personal reasons to move all money out of Pennsylvania during his divorce.) But Russell only used that alternative name for 7 years before he died. Later it was changed from People's Pulpit [of New York] to "Watchtower Bible and Tract Society [of New York]"
Russell continued to rely on a chronological system that promoted each of the following dates as specially marked in prophecy or predicted in prophecy. Almost all of them were still distinctly considered Biblically significant, and still being published "in print" in the publications until at least a decade after Russell died.
1776 1780 1798 1799 1800 1829 1833 1840 1844 1846 c.1859 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1878 1879 1881 1910 c.1911 1912 1914 1915 1918 (date predicted in 1917, based on Russell's writings, 8.5 months after his death) 1920 (date predicted in 1917, based on Russell's writings, 8.5 months after his death) So, tell me again, how Russell relied only on what the Scripture showed that made the 1914 date "scripturally sound."

That's really the crux of all the problems with the organization. Rank-and-file JWs do not have the right to question any doctrines--even with Biblical support. Only the GB can correctly interpret the Bible. Only the GB can make "refinements" in doctrine. If we have a disagreement with a doctrine, we must quietly wait with the hope that it might get changed someday.
A Governing Body taking the lead is not a bad thing. It keeps our organization...organized. But the Governing Body has no external auditor to scrutinize its ideas. The Bible should be that external auditor, but the Bible and the GB are intertwined. The Bible can't stand apart from the GB. Only the GB's interpretations of Scriptures are correct. Therefore, they can always discern the Bible in a way that supports the status quo.
I believe that's the case with the "two overlapping generations" theory. For decades, the organization said the generation was one group that saw Jesus' presence in 1914--it was apostasy to suggest otherwise. It's clear now that that idea was wrong. I guess a combination of ego and a fear of losing credibility means the GB won't let go of 1914 and the generation. So, they force the square peg in a round hole. They use weak Biblical evidence to make the old idea "work" while maintaining a sense of urgency (the second group is older now so we must be close!!). It's not about a Bible interpretation that makes the most sense anymore. It's about maintaining the facade that the org knows what it's doing and that we are still on the threshold of the new system. No doubt in a few decades (if this system persists) another "refinement" will come along that will have the same purpose (wash, rinse, repeat). If you type random numbers in a keypad it may eventually unlock, and eventually this system will end. So, if the org exists at that time of the end maybe they can say they were right to keep us on the edge--even if the evidence was incorrect. (I believe they use this justification currently in God's Kingdom Rules! paraphrasing from memory: "We were wrong on this but it kept everyone zealous at that time.")

Good thing Rutherford didn't have a sense of humor.

Good thing Rutherford didn't have a sense of humor.

I don't know, I haven't heard the talk yet.
Just kidding. I can see this going either way. It makes more sense to me that Jesus meant the other sheep were the literal gentiles. But then again not everything that appeared to apply to literal Israel appears to be strictly about literal Israel, and the Bible gives us some good reasons to see Israel as a kind of "type" of the heavenly Jerusalem, and of course Christ's Bride which is associated with the 144,000. Since that Bride includes people of the nations, an argument can be made for a "spiritual" rather than a "literal" application.
I'm usually for the most simple and straightforward explanation however, and I suspect that if this topic were opened up to entire congregations with only 15 minutes for each of these two perspectives -- I'd say that the simpler perspective would win the day.
Meaning of course that the difference in "little flock" and "other sheep" is this:
(Galatians 2:8) . . .for the one who empowered Peter for an apostleship to those who are circumcised also empowered me for those who are of the nations. . . I think Jesus pretty much gave away the answer when he said:
(Matthew 15:24) He answered: “I was not sent to anyone except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (John 10:16) . . .And I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; those too I must bring in. . .

I don't know, I haven't heard the talk yet.
Just kidding. I can see this going either way. It makes more sense to me that Jesus meant the other sheep were the literal gentiles. But then again not everything that appeared to apply to literal Israel appears to be strictly about literal Israel, and the Bible gives us some good reasons to see Israel as a kind of "type" of the heavenly Jerusalem, and of course Christ's Bride which is associated with the 144,000. Since that Bride includes people of the nations, an argument can be made for a "spiritual" rather than a "literal" application.
I'm usually for the most simple and straightforward explanation however, and I suspect that if this topic were opened up to entire congregations with only 15 minutes for each of these two perspectives -- I'd say that the simpler perspective would win the day.
Meaning of course that the difference in "little flock" and "other sheep" is this:
(Galatians 2:8) . . .for the one who empowered Peter for an apostleship to those who are circumcised also empowered me for those who are of the nations. . . I think Jesus pretty much gave away the answer when he said:
(Matthew 15:24) He answered: “I was not sent to anyone except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (John 10:16) . . .And I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; those too I must bring in. . .

I used the word "marked" because there is no term for "disfellowshipping" in the Scriptures. So I assume that a level similar to our "disfellowshipping" existed for extreme cases, but it must have still fallen under the category of "marking" which obviously was just a reputational warning to protect the congregation. A person can be met with in private, but if there needs to be a public marking or judgment of that person, then the reasons should be as clear as necessary to the congregation. I'm all for transparency.

Yes, sometimes. But this part was only meant to be partially hypothetical.
In spite of mistakes, I have never seen a directive where there is not an attempt -- usually successful, imo, to make it Bible-based. I think that the problems when this has failed has been a lack of input. Not that plenty of good input wasn't available. Before 1978, Bethel elders and "table heads" were full of ideas that they were sharing with other Bethelites. The Writing Department was full of a lot of intellectual honesty. I think the Aid Book project probably contributed to a new appreciation for the fact that so many of these commentaries from Christendom had remained very valuable resources for 100, 200 and even up to nearly 300 years. And yet if someone were to go looking carefully through our own Revelation and Ezekiel commentary from only 60 years earlier, we suspected him of being an apostate -- just for reading our own publications.

Knowing the role of the Governing Body should help us to understand how to treat them. This was brought up in another thread, but it seems relevant here. In the first century, the order of authority was apostles then prophets (1 Cor 12:28). 
It seems to me that the prophets and apostles checked each other so that no one group became too powerful in the first century. They both had different but equally important roles to fulfill: the apostles took the lead over the congregation and the prophets were spiritual guides. 
The prophets were necessary to "fill in the gaps" of an incomplete Bible, but today we have a complete Bible. So, prophets are unnecessary. However, the GB asserts that Bible discernment is unsuccessful without their interpretations of it. In other words, the Bible alone is insufficient--we need the GB to "fill in the gaps." So, the GB acts likes the apostles by taking the lead and prophets by being exclusive interpreters of the Bible.
This premise seems flawed to me. The Bible should stand alone as a separate entity. It shouldn't be intertwined with the GB, because the Bible should act as an external auditor for the GB's actions. At present, by being "guardians of doctrine" the GB can make the Bible fit their method of operation. The Bible is not a rigid thing and this can be taken advantage of.
So while I respect the Governing Body for taking the lead, I feel that they have too much unchecked authority, and this could set a bad precedent for the future. The GB should be actively checked by the Bible and any student of the Bible.  
 
 

Then why did the Watchtower ever change anything if everything was directly from scripture? Obviously you are saying that this might not have been true last year, because some things have already changed since then, but it must be true this year. But if it's true this year, then you are claiming that any changes made for next year are no longer directly from Scripture, unless of course you are arguing that the Scriptures contradict themselves. You are using cult-speak even though the Watchtower is not a cult.
Obviously we need to question ourselves first, but to answer your first question, it's our Christian obligation to question the anointed ones. You've seen a dozen scriptures to this effect, and you evidently do not believe in them. By whose power and authority do you decide it's OK to go against the Bible, and not to question the anointed ones?
(1 John 4:1) . . .Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired statement, but test the inspired statements to see whether they originate with God, . . .
(Philippians 1:8-10) . . .. 9 And this is what I continue praying, that your love may abound still more and more with accurate knowledge and full discernment; 10 that you may make sure of the more important things,. . .
(1 Thessalonians 5:21) 21 Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine.
(2 Corinthians 13:5) 5 Keep testing whether you are in the faith; keep proving what you yourselves are.. . .
(1 Corinthians 11:19) 19 For there will certainly also be sects among you, so that those of you who are approved may also become evident.
(Romans 12:2) . . .be transformed by making your mind over, so that you may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
(2 Corinthians 10:4, 5) 4 For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful by God for overturning strongly entrenched things. 5 For we are overturning reasonings . . .
(Philippians 4:5) 5 Let your reasonableness become known to all men.. . .
(James 1:6) 6 But let him keep asking in faith, not doubting at all, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven by the wind and blown about.
 

Depends on the kinds of teachings you are talking about. Most things are repeated so often that you can't miss them. Any child in the organization can rattle off a list of things we don't approve of, and they will be correct. The general idea of baptism is that the person realizes that he wants to associate with a people who have high moral standards and who are best known for getting out there and preaching the good news of the kingdom that will someday step in and solve man's problems and turn the earth into a paradise.
(By the way, I didn't include those items on a previous list of core doctrines, but I also agree that God's will through the Kingdom will be done both in heaven AND on earth, and therefore there are a "new heavens" AND a "new earth" that we are awaiting according to his promise. I also think that the basis for preaching about this good news is best done through a world-wide house-to-house ministry, wherever possible, so I should also have included this practice into the core teachings of Christianity, although I don't think that preaching and teaching is the only ministry of sacred service.)
A few months ago, our Circuit Overseer and a couple of elders were here at the house and I was thinking about something I had just written over here on the forum. It was following the funeral of an anointed sister,  and someone said something about what she might have said last week when she met "Saint Peter at the Golden Gates" in a joking manner, and I said "well now, of course, we say it's only an interesting possibility to say that Peter is already in heaven." I knew I shouldn't have said it, but the Circuit Overseer said that Peter has been in heaven since the spring of 1918. The other two elders quickly agreed, "That's right," "That's right." So I said, "Oh I thought I read somewhere that we didn't put an exact date on that any more," and I quickly changed the subject.

I always find it interesting that JWs try and use these scriptures to defend shunning  when in reality Jesus was warning the Christians of that time that if they left Judaism and began to follow him that their families would Shun them and cut them off.  His words indicate that if someone was intimidated by this threat and they loved their relationships with their family more than they loved him that they really weren't worthy of him. However he never encouraged his disciples to  shun their family  he is simply warning them that their families will try and use the threat of estrangement to keep them from joining the movement.

I've aleady said a lot more than my share in the last couple months here. And it has probably dipped the popularity of this particular forum to its lowest levels in a long time. But I would like to share some points that might be right or wrong. They're just opinions.
I too have serious doubts about the 1914 doctrine, but I have not been disfellowshipped. It is true that you have to "muzzle" yourself, and as you say, basically take a vow of silence among your friends, even some of your most trusted friends. I have seen brothers who have "covered" for each other by not turning them in, and even lying for them. I've known this to have happened among brothers (and sisters) on issues ranging from drugs, fornication, belief in evolution, disbelief in our blood doctrine, habitual drunkennes, etc -- but I would never imagine that brothers like that would be trusted to understand how to respond to a fellow Witness on the topic of 1914.
A recent couple of discussions here have shown me that, for some, almost all semblance of Christianity goes out the window when something so basic to our comfort level is threatened. There are books that discuss this phenomenon from a psychological perspective, too, and I have been surprised and saddened to see the precise, predictable patterns emerge among us.
However, if one wishes to stay, work, and serve among Jehovah's Witnesses, as I do, then I'm pretty sure it's possible for almost anyone to remain as a Witness in good standing. There are some with ebullient personalities who will have more trouble than others, but there are other outlets for sacred service that are just as acceptable to Jehovah besides teaching 100% of the current doctrines. (There are 100 other, more important doctrines to emphasize.) There are especially good works, which could be visiting the elderly, offering rides, helping brothers out financially, helping them find jobs, volunteering to help them with food, chores, errands. For me Christianity is not strictly the doctrinal part of the religion on its own, but our form of Christianity is (to me) a clear stepping stone to mature Christianity. The emphasis on the Bible is higher than most religions, and the most important need that it meets is to provide comfort to those who are sighing, learning to throw our burdens on Jehovah, and recognizing that Christianity is primarily the strong bond of brotherhood, the social structure, by which we help and encourage one another to keep our faith.
I have never believed that all the doctrines have to be in order as long as our motivations are out of love for God and neighbor. If they did all have to be in order, then no person associated with the Watchtower and Jehovah's Witnesses from 1919 until 2016 even passed the test anyway, because so many doctrines have changed during that time. And ye we have no problem believing that Jehovah accepted these persons as Christians, in spite of the false doctrines. (In 2018, we will no doubt change more doctrines, which means that none of us had all our doctrines in order this year either.) However, I still find that all the important core doctrines fit the Bible much better than any other set of core doctrines I have seen anywhere else. (war, neutrality, morality, ransom, Trinity, hell-fire, torment, soul, spirit, sovereignty, outworking of kingdom in history, millennium, Armageddon, resurrection, salvation) I question plenty of other things too, but do not reject them outright.
I could still be wrong on 1914, but at the moment, I currently have no doubts; I'm sure it's wrong, and I'm sure it's wrong to emphasize the date even if it were right. But as a Christian brotherhood, we are not much different in our thinking about the final end than first-century Christians. They, too, expected the final end in their own generation. They too wondered how long that "generation" could go on. They knew that times were getting worse and worse for them and comforted themselves knowing that the time for their salvation was nearer to them every day. So we all remain watchful of our conduct and our motivations, but also patient. 1914 has probably created some unscriptural adjustments to that idea of patience, and has no doubt created an air of anticipation about date for the end of the generation that supposedly started in 1914, and  this is spiritually unhealthy. With enough failed expectations behind us, however, we are fairly unlikely to fall into the specific trap of serving for a specific time or season. But humans are humans and the presumptuousness of believing we have been given some kind of special knowledge or special interpretation has affected many, right up to the highest levels of responsibility in the organization.

Oh boy!! I think that first question was supposed to be rhetorical, right? Clearly you are mistaken in thinking that this is the first time I've pointed out that the answers to such ridiculous questions are sometimes so obvious. The reason I have said the exact same thing on several previous occasions in the last couple years is that it highlights the contradiction you create when you call doctrines from any particular "current" time "God's doctrines." I have to say that it seems so demeaning to an all-powerful God to sully his name by saying that certain false doctrines had to be considered "God's doctrines" just because at the current time, back then, they were being promoted by the Governing Body.
Paul actually cursed at the Galatians for putting up with this kind of thinking: that just because the persons who are promoting a teaching are well-respected persons such as Peter, James and John, that they should just go along with it:
(Galatians 1:7-9) . . .; but there are certain ones who are causing you trouble and wanting to distort the good news about the Christ. 8 However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond the good news we declared to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, I now say again, Whoever is declaring to you as good news something beyond what you accepted, let him be accursed. Yet it was the same people Paul named here that we have called the "Governing Body" in Jerusalem: Peter, James and John, for example. So you can't argue that when Paul says, "beyond the good news that was declared to you" that he was referring to the Governing Body. He was referring to the doctrines of Christ Jesus and Jehovah God as now found in the Bible.
(Galatians 3:1-3) 3 O senseless Ga·la?tians! Who has brought you under this evil influence, you who had Jesus Christ openly portrayed before you as nailed to the stake? 2 This one thing I want to ask you: Did you receive the spirit through works of law or because of faith in what you heard? 3 Are you so senseless? After starting on a spiritual course, are you finishing on a fleshly course? So there's nothing new here in spite of you rhetoric. You have always known that there have been false teachings that were considered "God's teachings" at the time. But this very idea brings reproach on the truth. The entire meaning of the word truth is turned upside down if you are required to say that falsehood is also truth and that a person can even be disciplined for believing truth when he is still required to accept falsehood as "God's doctrines."
Instead, we can be appreciative of the progress that has always been made. We can cheer on the Governing Body for the wonderful tools they have provided, and the set of core doctrines that we appreciate. We can thank Jehovah that they have been so successful under His guidance, as someone here just said. But calling what is good, bad, and what is bad, good is not what Jehovah wants from us. 
(Isaiah 5:20) 20 Woe to those who say that good is bad and bad is good, Those who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness, Those who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!  
 

That article from 1951 does indeed indicate that the Watchtower had been teaching that from the death of Jesus (until 1931) all Christians were only allowed to be in line for the heavenly gift, the heavenly calling. Note this from 1965:
*** w65 3/1 p. 148 pars. 18-20 Part Two ***
However, down till recently, the Fine Shepherd Jesus Christ was not calling out and gathering his “other sheep” in hope of everlasting life on earth.—John 10:16.
19 The inspired Scriptures show that God set a definite time for himself to gather together the “other sheep” for whom he reserves everlasting salvation on the Paradise earth under the kingdom of his dear Son. God’s provision for such “other sheep” is not a sort of safety net to catch all those whom he calls to the heavenly inheritance but who do not meet the requirements for it by a Christian course faithful to the death. Christians who have the heavenly inheritance reserved for themselves must either prove worthy of entering into it or else fail altogether without any other life prospects to fall back on. . . .
20 According to the historical facts, the gathering of the “great crowd” of other sheep began not before 1931 C.E., but particularly from 1935 C.E. forward.
So the 1951 and the 1965 articles said that the heavenly hope to be one of the 144,000 was the only hope open to Christians during those centuries following Christ's death [up until 1931].
*** w52 1/15 p. 62 Questions From Readers ***
. . .  the Scriptural limitation of 144,000 placed on the number being in Christ’s body, and which position was the only one open to Christians during those centuries?
The answer to that "Question From Readers" implied that most of these ones must have been only "professed Christians" and "not in line for the high [heavenly] calling." The reader might assume therefore that they could have been in line for an earthly calling, the "other sheep." But we were still teaching even in 1965 that there was no other calling between 33 CE and 1931.**[see footnote]
**footnote: Actually, for a time, up until the 1950's and 1960's, it was taught that the group identified in 1935, had not only been called since 1931, but since 1919, and we just hadn't recognized it yet. The reasoning, if I remember right, is that John saw them come out of the Great Tribulation, and we believed (at the time) that the Great Tribulation was still in effect up until 1919, before a break in the tribulation (on account of the chosen ones). I'll find the reference if anyone is interested.
I asked Brother Fred Franz about this, and he said that many of these 100's of thousands of Christian martyrs must be in Gehenna. He said even if they were just swept up in the Christian movement, they must have had a taste of the heavenly gift. 
(Hebrews 6:4-6) 4 For as regards those who were once enlightened and who have tasted the heavenly free gift and who have become partakers of holy spirit 5 and who have tasted the fine word of God and powers of the coming system of things, 6 but have fallen away, it is impossible to revive them again to repentance,. . .
This idea (that hundreds of thousands of persons who were willing to die for their Christian faith ended up in Gehenna) didn't sound right to my wife, who asked Brother Rusk about it. Brother Rusk was the Watchtower's Editor at the time, and he also was the brother who performed our wedding ceremony. He implied that all these reported numbers of  martyrs were just too high, so that these reports were all probably exaggerations in the first place, and so not to worry about it. If you knew the two men, you might have easily guessed that Franz would be judgmental, but Rusk would be more flexible with the Gehenna idea. At least Rusk never made the same claim that we could judge them to Gehenna, but he wouldn't deny it either. I wanted to believe, of course, that if they had not made it to full Christian maturity, then Hebrews 6 didn't apply. After all, the verses leading up to Hebrews 6:4 are these:
(Hebrews 5:12-6:2) 12 For although by now you should be teachers, you again need someone to teach you from the beginning the elementary things of the sacred pronouncements of God, and you have gone back to needing milk, not solid food. 13 For everyone who continues to feed on milk is unacquainted with the word of righteousness, for he is a young child. 14 But solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their powers of discernment trained to distinguish both right and wrong. 6 Therefore, now that we have moved beyond the primary doctrine about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying a foundation again, namely, repentance from dead works and faith in God, 2 the teaching on baptisms and the laying on of the hands, the resurrection of the dead and everlasting judgment.
JUST ONE LITTLE PROBLEM . . .
Of course, as ex-JWs will often point out, since upwards of 56,000 were partaking around 1931-1935, and there are something like 19,000 partaking now, this would mean that more than half the 144,000 are already accounted for among Jehovah's Witnesses. That would mean that in those 1,898 years (between 33 and 1931) that only about 69,000 Christians existed on earth. That works out to be about 36 new Christians every year. But we also know that there were at least 10,000 Christians in the very first century. Leaving us with 59,000 in about the same number of years, or 31 new Christians every year. It would almost look like the Gates of Gehenna had overpowered Christianity.

I've aleady said a lot more than my share in the last couple months here. And it has probably dipped the popularity of this particular forum to its lowest levels in a long time. But I would like to share some points that might be right or wrong. They're just opinions.
I too have serious doubts about the 1914 doctrine, but I have not been disfellowshipped. It is true that you have to "muzzle" yourself, and as you say, basically take a vow of silence among your friends, even some of your most trusted friends. I have seen brothers who have "covered" for each other by not turning them in, and even lying for them. I've known this to have happened among brothers (and sisters) on issues ranging from drugs, fornication, belief in evolution, disbelief in our blood doctrine, habitual drunkennes, etc -- but I would never imagine that brothers like that would be trusted to understand how to respond to a fellow Witness on the topic of 1914.
A recent couple of discussions here have shown me that, for some, almost all semblance of Christianity goes out the window when something so basic to our comfort level is threatened. There are books that discuss this phenomenon from a psychological perspective, too, and I have been surprised and saddened to see the precise, predictable patterns emerge among us.
However, if one wishes to stay, work, and serve among Jehovah's Witnesses, as I do, then I'm pretty sure it's possible for almost anyone to remain as a Witness in good standing. There are some with ebullient personalities who will have more trouble than others, but there are other outlets for sacred service that are just as acceptable to Jehovah besides teaching 100% of the current doctrines. (There are 100 other, more important doctrines to emphasize.) There are especially good works, which could be visiting the elderly, offering rides, helping brothers out financially, helping them find jobs, volunteering to help them with food, chores, errands. For me Christianity is not strictly the doctrinal part of the religion on its own, but our form of Christianity is (to me) a clear stepping stone to mature Christianity. The emphasis on the Bible is higher than most religions, and the most important need that it meets is to provide comfort to those who are sighing, learning to throw our burdens on Jehovah, and recognizing that Christianity is primarily the strong bond of brotherhood, the social structure, by which we help and encourage one another to keep our faith.
I have never believed that all the doctrines have to be in order as long as our motivations are out of love for God and neighbor. If they did all have to be in order, then no person associated with the Watchtower and Jehovah's Witnesses from 1919 until 2016 even passed the test anyway, because so many doctrines have changed during that time. And ye we have no problem believing that Jehovah accepted these persons as Christians, in spite of the false doctrines. (In 2018, we will no doubt change more doctrines, which means that none of us had all our doctrines in order this year either.) However, I still find that all the important core doctrines fit the Bible much better than any other set of core doctrines I have seen anywhere else. (war, neutrality, morality, ransom, Trinity, hell-fire, torment, soul, spirit, sovereignty, outworking of kingdom in history, millennium, Armageddon, resurrection, salvation) I question plenty of other things too, but do not reject them outright.
I could still be wrong on 1914, but at the moment, I currently have no doubts; I'm sure it's wrong, and I'm sure it's wrong to emphasize the date even if it were right. But as a Christian brotherhood, we are not much different in our thinking about the final end than first-century Christians. They, too, expected the final end in their own generation. They too wondered how long that "generation" could go on. They knew that times were getting worse and worse for them and comforted themselves knowing that the time for their salvation was nearer to them every day. So we all remain watchful of our conduct and our motivations, but also patient. 1914 has probably created some unscriptural adjustments to that idea of patience, and has no doubt created an air of anticipation about date for the end of the generation that supposedly started in 1914, and  this is spiritually unhealthy. With enough failed expectations behind us, however, we are fairly unlikely to fall into the specific trap of serving for a specific time or season. But humans are humans and the presumptuousness of believing we have been given some kind of special knowledge or special interpretation has affected many, right up to the highest levels of responsibility in the organization.

Even before C.T.Russell was born, commentaries on Bible prophecy included  dozens of potential dates. Nearly 200 years ago, a couple of them even included 1914 as potentially significant time period. The "1914 presence" doctrine, however, is only about 75 years old.
All the ideas behind the Watch Tower's version of the 1914 doctrine have already been discussed for decades now, and all of them, so far, have been shown to be problematic from a Scriptural point of view. Since the time that the doctrine generally took its current shape in 1943, the meanings and applications of various portions of Matthew 24 and 25 have already been changed, and the timing of various prophesied events and illustrations have changed. Most recently, the meaning and identification of the "faithful and discreet slave" has changed. And the definition of "generation" has changed about half-a-dozen times. This doesn't mean that the current understandings are impossible, of course, only that it has become less likely from the point of view of reason and reasonableness.
Besides, for most of the years of teaching this doctrine, we have had the flexibility of extending the "1914 generation" from a possible 40 years, up to 70, then 75, then 80 years. And this has been applied to teenagers who saw 1914, 10-year-olds who saw 1914, then even newborns who saw 1914. With every one of these options already tried and stretched to their limits, we finally were forced to convert the meaning of generation from its most common meanings and give it a new "strained" meaning that has no other Biblical parallel. (See Exodus 1:6; Matthew 1:17; 16:4; 23:36; Luke 11:50)
But that flexibility is still seen as the last reason for hope that the Watch Tower Society might have still been correct in hanging on to 1914. Since the Bible says that a lifespan is 70 or 80 years and 1914 + 80 = 1994, the "generation" doctrine in its original form (1943) could remain stable until about 1994. Of course, a lifespan could technically reach to 120 years or more, and Gen 6:3 even gives vague support to the idea that the "1914 generation" could last 120 years, until 2034.
The current alternative solution is to make the generation out of the length of two lifespans, which technically could be double 120 years, or nearly 240 years from 1914. That would have had the potential to reach to the year 2154 (1914+240) except for the caveat that it can, by its new definition, only refer to anointed persons who discerned the sign in 1914 and whose lives overlapped (technically, by as little as one second) with the lifespan of another anointed person representing the second group. If persons from each group don't really discern their own "anointing" until age 20, for example, this would effectively remove 40 years from the overall maximum. 1914+120-20+120-20 = 2114. We could also assume a possible lifespan of more than 120 years, but otherwise, the new two-lifespan generation could potentially make the generation last 200 years. This "technical maximum" is not promoted currently, because for now we look at examples like Fred Franz who was part of that original generation already anointed and who saw the sign, and the typical example of an anointed brother who was apparently "anointed" prior to Franz' death in 1992 would be someone like Governing Body member, Brother Sanderson, who was born in 1965, baptized in 1975, and was already a "special pioneer" in 1991. His is currently 52.
However, the generation problem is just one more problem now which we can add onto the list of all the other points that make up the 1914 doctrine. Here are several points related to 1914 that appear problematic from a Scriptural point of view:
All evidence shows the 1914 date is wrong when trying to base it on the destruction of Jerusalem. (Daniel 1:1; 2 Chron 36:1-22; Jer 25:8-12; Zech 1:12, 7:4; Ezra 3:10-13) Paul said that Jesus sat at God's right hand in the first century and that he already began ruling as king at that time. (1 Cor 15:25) Jesus said not to be fooled by the idea that wars and rumors of wars would be the start of a "sign" (Matt 24:4,5) Jesus said that the "parousia" would be as visible as lightning (Matt 24:27). He spoke against people who might say he had returned but was currently not visible. (Matt 24:23-26) Jesus said that his "parousia" would come as a surprise to the faithful, not that they would discern the time of the parousia decades in advance. (Matt 24:36-42) Jesus said that the kingdom would not be indicated by "signs" (Luke 17:20, almost any translation except NWT in this case) The "synteleia" (end of all things together) refers to a concluding event, not an extended period of time (Matt 28:20) Jesus was already called ruler, King and even "King of Kings" in the first century. (1 Tim 6:15, Heb 7:2,17; Rev 1:5; 17:14) Wicked, beastly King Nebuchadnezzar's insanity and humiliation does not represent Jesus as the "lowliest one of mankind." (Heb 1:5,6; 2:10,11; Daniel 4:23-25; cf. Heb 2:7; 1 Pet 3:17,18) The demise of a Gentile kingdom cannot rightly represent the time of the rise of the Gentile kingdoms (Daniel 4:26,27) The Gentile kings did not meet their demise in 1914. (Rev 2:25,26) The time assigned to the Gentile Times that Jesus spoke about in Luke 21:24 is already given as 3.5 times, not 7 times (Revelation 11:2,3) The Devil was already brought down from "heaven" in the first century. (1 John 2:14,15; 1 Pet 5:8; Luke 10:18; Heb 2:14) The Bible says that the "last days" began in the first century. (Acts 2:14-20; 2 Tim 3:1-17; 1 Peter 3:3-5; Heb 1:2, almost any translation except NWT in this case.)

Sure. From 1919 to 1927 the Governing Body promoted the doctrine that the Great Pyramid was as Russell called it: "Jehovah's witness" and "the Bible in stone." The books stating this doctrine were promoted until about 1933. After Rutherford changed the doctrine, he even called the Great Pyramid, "Satan's Bible." (1928)  So if you believe that what was taught from 1919 to 1927 was "God's doctrine" then the Governing Body under Rutherford changed it.
Of course, in 1925 Rutherford also used the term "Satan" to refer to the larger part of the Governing Body at that time and he finally got rid of the entire Editorial Committee, which he had previously referred to as "Satan," in 1931.
The Watchtower also claims that Rutherford changed Russell's "correct view" of Romans 13 to an incorrect view, and says that it stayed that way in the 1930's until the 1960's. If you believe the current doctrine is "God's doctrine" and that the Watchtower is correct when it says that this doctrine was "correct" under Russell, then you should accept the Watchtower's view that Rutherford changed what you now call "God's doctrine."

Spill the beans on me and I'll cut off your water supply and make you gift-wrap your own excrement and urine, just like Rabshekah threatened the Israelites 

Sheol? I know that, although you call yourself a Virginian, you live near the Canadian border in Rochester, but Sheol is in Alberta, Canada not far from the Pope and the Devil, and a lake that I think is a shortened form of Lake Lucifer.

Are you sure you weren't in Hell, Michigan?

On an even more important note, I just noticed that Google says the Area Code for Hell is 734.

Don't know if that fact will ever come in handy, but I know it's going to be easy to remember because if you type in "734" on a calculator and turn it upside down, it spells"HEL" although "7734" is better:

Oh the things we will learn, the places we will go!  Might want to pass this bit of trivia on to Vic if you see him.
The Librarian will probably take away my new privileges for this, but what the .... what the ... hay.