JW Insider

I'm glad you got right to the point. Asking "why associate with an organization that...?" clearly means that you think Christians should leave the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses. You are bringing up points that could be put in a thread of their own, but I'll assume that you are tying these points to survival of the Great Tribulation, which many (most?) Witnesses conflate with any fear of a third world war or the potential of world-wide persecution.
Asking that question, "why associate?" means you have given up on the idea that Jehovah's Witnesses are a true and valid representation in this twenty-first century of the Christian congregation in the first century.
Personally, I don't see anything wrong with you bringing these issues up for whatever reasons. I bring up similar issues regularly for clarity, so that fellow brothers and sisters are aware of the counter-arguments to our beliefs, and so that we don't fall into the trap of dishonesty where we simply say that something can't be true if it makes us look wrong. I would be happy to engage fully with your points especially if I thought your purpose was to help remove potential error from our teachings. That said, I don't actually believe that we survive the Great Tribulation of Revelation 7 by "washing our robes" through perfectly clean teachings, but by the cleanness of our conscience, by clean conduct. Therefore honesty about doctrine is even more important than claiming to have the right doctrine:
(Matthew 7:21-24) 21 “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but only the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. 22 Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them: ‘I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!’
24 “Therefore, everyone who hears these sayings of mine and does them will be like a discreet man who built his house on the rock.
Therefore, it's a matter of what sort of persons ought we to be, not what sort of doctrines did we believe.
But there is also considerable overlap between doctrines themselves and how we should honestly conduct ourselves. For example, we should trust that we don't need to participate in the world's politics and wars if we think about what it must mean to remain 'no part of this world.' That is very difficult for most people, and most religions. I won't get into dozens of other points like that here, but I'll try to get to the question of using the name "Jehovah."
I have a 1-year old granddaughter who calls me g'PA and sometimes GanPA and sometimes Gam'PA and sometimes GAM'pa. She identifies me correctly when she sees a picture on their wall, or in my iPhone, or on Skype or FaceTime. She has another grandfather who she calls Papa and Poppy (she calls her father Dada and Daddy). When I come through her door a few times a week to babysit along with my wife, I smile inside and out when she calls out g'PA. That's my name to her. She doesn't use that term for anyone else. I don't mind in the least that she mispronounces "grandpa" by leaving out a couple of whole consonants, or turns two syllables to one syllable.  Someday, she will probably try to distinguish her two grandfathers by including a more specific name like Grandpa Beezlebumps vs. Grandpa Hamhocker. Having her know that I have a more personal and specific name is probably not that important to me, as long as she knows me.
I can understand why we could be just as happy to "know" the personal specific name for God and use it for circumstances like public prayer and discussion, and use a title like "Father" in private, in the same way that my granddaughter calls me "g'PA." But we have the example of the Israelites whose history as found in the Bible contains the specific name THOUSANDS of times. That's the reason we think it's important. Because of the Bible. Jesus used the term Father (also Aramaic, abba) in his speech and prayers. And when the apostle Paul speaks of distinguishing our God from other gods, he doesn't use the divine name, but also calls Him, "God, the Father."
(1 Corinthians 8:5, 6) 5 For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him.
No one thinks it's a magic name that must be pronounced exactly right, or exactly the same in each language. That's not the point. The point is that we try to use a name that is distinctive, based on the tetragrammaton, with whatever vowels are common and understandable, and so that others know who we mean.
Also, just because Greber translates John 1:1 as we do, doesn't mean that the NWT depended on Greber or has any relationship to him. It's just an acknowledgement that other translators have translated the verse as the NWT does. People don't usually have a lot of complaints about how the Greber translation turned out, usually only two or three passages. Another one is about how the bodies turned up from an earthquake. We like Greber's version here, too.
(Matthew 27:51-53) . . .. 52 And the tombs were opened, and many bodies of the holy ones who had fallen asleep were raised up 53 (and people coming out from among the tombs after his being raised up entered into the holy city), and they became visible to many people.  [NWT shown, Greber presents same idea]
My point is that people don't complain about the Greber Bible as a bad translation with a lot of mistakes. They only point out one or two. They also complain about a claim of "spiritism" made about his translation process. Martin Luther made similar claims. One might even say that the apostle Paul made similar claims. It's what some people expected the direction of "holy spirit" to feel like.

People should get their story straight when it comes to practicing high-degree Freemasons. Notice this "true" story:
That the most powerful Masons are actually reptilian shape shifters that drink human blood and eat human flesh.
 - That I demonstrated characteristics of someone with incredible survival instincts and that I was attempting to be the alpha male at work by dominating other men and trying to possess nearly every attractive woman in the workplace, which are reptilian characteristics.
 - That the Masonic initiation ritual I would go through would activate my reptilian DNA.
 - That the blood drinking, flesh eating orgies that I would participate in have roots in the ancient mystery religion of the Egyptians. - See more at: https://www.henrymakow.com/freemasonry.html#sthash.hTMw0qVB.dpuf That the most powerful Masons are actually reptilian shape shifters that drink human blood and eat human flesh.
 - That I demonstrated characteristics of someone with incredible survival instincts and that I was attempting to be the alpha male at work by dominating other men and trying to possess nearly every attractive woman in the workplace, which are reptilian characteristics.
 - That the Masonic initiation ritual I would go through would activate my reptilian DNA.
 - That the blood drinking, flesh eating orgies that I would participate in have roots in the ancient mystery religion of the Egyptians. - See more at: https://www.henrymakow.com/freemasonry.html
Charles Taze Russell was not a Freemason at all, much less a 33rd degree Freemason. No one has yet been able to offer any evidence that he was. Also, there was never a time when the 10,000 or so partakers under Russell's leadership had a secondary passover. With the large number of defectors from Russell who spoke out against him after leaving the various Bible Students associations, none of them ever mentioned such a practice. Not even any of the supposed eye-witnesses that you have heard from have ever presented any evidence. "Recalling accounts" is not evidence. [For example, I recall an account where Richard Nixon said he was innocent of any involvement in Watergate. That does not mean that I have evidence that Richard Nixon was innocent of any involvement in Watergate -- yet I really do recall the account where he actually said this himself. It's even on video.]
Under Russell, the "great crowd of other sheep" were actually of the anointed. Under Russell, the great crowd of other sheep were also of the heavenly hope.
Under Rutherford this great crowd remained exactly as they were under Russell, until the early 1930's, when they were seen as less spiritual than the 144,000. They were soon seen as persons who had squandered their hope of getting into heaven by being materialistic. After they were defined as people who would live on earth (by 1935) they were not even allowed to come to the Memorial, and they were told that they were no longer anointed. They were not even called Jehovah's witnesses. The "great multitude" would join the "Jonadab" class. The expression referring to all the persons associated with the Watch Tower was: "Jehovah's witnesses and their associates, the Jonadabs." This meant the same thing as "the anointed and the non-anointed." (Only the anointed could be called Jehovah's witnesses.)
Only when the Jonadabs were finally invited to the Memorial did there come a time when persons would be in the audience who passed up the emblems and did not partake. But at that time (in some congregations) it was just as high a percentage who partook compared with the percentage who did not. It was only over the years as the number of Jonadabs significantly outnumbered the anointed, that it appeared that the Memorial was a 'ritual' where everyone seemed to pass up the emblems.
 
I would agree with your first statement. After all:
(John 6:54-58) 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I will resurrect him on the last day; 55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood remains in union with me, and I in union with him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. It is not as when your forefathers ate and yet died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”
Jesus did not say that only those of a heavenly hope should partake. But we don't need to partake of anything in a physical ritual. The ritual is there as a Memorial. Any claim that we must participate only in a specific manner is the same as creating specific acts (or works) of law. But mentally we must understand that Jesus is the bread from heaven and that his blood means life for us. Whether we put the glass to our lips or add our saliva to a piece of bread and swallow it during a ritual is not what is truly important. Besides, if we hold to an earthly hope, then we would merely be confusing others who might take our participation as a declaration that we are of a heavenly hope. As JWs we have imbued the emblems with a different meaning than Jesus gave them, but we are not judged by our action with respect to physical emblems. Other humans might judge us and even be offended and think it is "unclean" to partake if we have an earthly hope. But, overall, the emblems are just "food" so it doesn't matter.
(Romans 14:14-17) 14 I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; only where a man considers something to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15 For if your brother is being offended because of food, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not by your food ruin that one for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore, do not let the good you do be spoken of as bad. 17 For the Kingdom of God does not mean eating and drinking,. . .
The point about two folds of sheep being all part of the same flock has been known for a long time. When Jesus said he had "other sheep" who were not of this fold, I would have to agree that he meant "Gentiles." (Even the "great crowd" in Revelation come out of all nations, while the 144,000 come out of the tribes of Israel.) Russell understood this, and several members of the Governing Body still understood it this way through the 1970's and 1980's. Some Governing Body members might still see it this way. But the understanding has been "spiritualized" so that these are spiritual Gentiles and the 144,000 are spiritual Jews. It's not an impossible doctrinal construction. In other words, even if we changed our doctrine back to claiming that the "other sheep" referred to physical Gentiles [non-Jews], and that non-Jews (like Cornelius) would be brought into the same pen after Jesus died, this doesn't mean that anything would necessarily change with respect to who physically partakes at the Memorial.

People should get their story straight when it comes to practicing high-degree Freemasons. Notice this "true" story:
That the most powerful Masons are actually reptilian shape shifters that drink human blood and eat human flesh.
 - That I demonstrated characteristics of someone with incredible survival instincts and that I was attempting to be the alpha male at work by dominating other men and trying to possess nearly every attractive woman in the workplace, which are reptilian characteristics.
 - That the Masonic initiation ritual I would go through would activate my reptilian DNA.
 - That the blood drinking, flesh eating orgies that I would participate in have roots in the ancient mystery religion of the Egyptians. - See more at: https://www.henrymakow.com/freemasonry.html#sthash.hTMw0qVB.dpuf That the most powerful Masons are actually reptilian shape shifters that drink human blood and eat human flesh.
 - That I demonstrated characteristics of someone with incredible survival instincts and that I was attempting to be the alpha male at work by dominating other men and trying to possess nearly every attractive woman in the workplace, which are reptilian characteristics.
 - That the Masonic initiation ritual I would go through would activate my reptilian DNA.
 - That the blood drinking, flesh eating orgies that I would participate in have roots in the ancient mystery religion of the Egyptians. - See more at: https://www.henrymakow.com/freemasonry.html
Charles Taze Russell was not a Freemason at all, much less a 33rd degree Freemason. No one has yet been able to offer any evidence that he was. Also, there was never a time when the 10,000 or so partakers under Russell's leadership had a secondary passover. With the large number of defectors from Russell who spoke out against him after leaving the various Bible Students associations, none of them ever mentioned such a practice. Not even any of the supposed eye-witnesses that you have heard from have ever presented any evidence. "Recalling accounts" is not evidence. [For example, I recall an account where Richard Nixon said he was innocent of any involvement in Watergate. That does not mean that I have evidence that Richard Nixon was innocent of any involvement in Watergate -- yet I really do recall the account where he actually said this himself. It's even on video.]
Under Russell, the "great crowd of other sheep" were actually of the anointed. Under Russell, the great crowd of other sheep were also of the heavenly hope.
Under Rutherford this great crowd remained exactly as they were under Russell, until the early 1930's, when they were seen as less spiritual than the 144,000. They were soon seen as persons who had squandered their hope of getting into heaven by being materialistic. After they were defined as people who would live on earth (by 1935) they were not even allowed to come to the Memorial, and they were told that they were no longer anointed. They were not even called Jehovah's witnesses. The "great multitude" would join the "Jonadab" class. The expression referring to all the persons associated with the Watch Tower was: "Jehovah's witnesses and their associates, the Jonadabs." This meant the same thing as "the anointed and the non-anointed." (Only the anointed could be called Jehovah's witnesses.)
Only when the Jonadabs were finally invited to the Memorial did there come a time when persons would be in the audience who passed up the emblems and did not partake. But at that time (in some congregations) it was just as high a percentage who partook compared with the percentage who did not. It was only over the years as the number of Jonadabs significantly outnumbered the anointed, that it appeared that the Memorial was a 'ritual' where everyone seemed to pass up the emblems.
 
I would agree with your first statement. After all:
(John 6:54-58) 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I will resurrect him on the last day; 55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood remains in union with me, and I in union with him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. It is not as when your forefathers ate and yet died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”
Jesus did not say that only those of a heavenly hope should partake. But we don't need to partake of anything in a physical ritual. The ritual is there as a Memorial. Any claim that we must participate only in a specific manner is the same as creating specific acts (or works) of law. But mentally we must understand that Jesus is the bread from heaven and that his blood means life for us. Whether we put the glass to our lips or add our saliva to a piece of bread and swallow it during a ritual is not what is truly important. Besides, if we hold to an earthly hope, then we would merely be confusing others who might take our participation as a declaration that we are of a heavenly hope. As JWs we have imbued the emblems with a different meaning than Jesus gave them, but we are not judged by our action with respect to physical emblems. Other humans might judge us and even be offended and think it is "unclean" to partake if we have an earthly hope. But, overall, the emblems are just "food" so it doesn't matter.
(Romans 14:14-17) 14 I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; only where a man considers something to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15 For if your brother is being offended because of food, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not by your food ruin that one for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore, do not let the good you do be spoken of as bad. 17 For the Kingdom of God does not mean eating and drinking,. . .
The point about two folds of sheep being all part of the same flock has been known for a long time. When Jesus said he had "other sheep" who were not of this fold, I would have to agree that he meant "Gentiles." (Even the "great crowd" in Revelation come out of all nations, while the 144,000 come out of the tribes of Israel.) Russell understood this, and several members of the Governing Body still understood it this way through the 1970's and 1980's. Some Governing Body members might still see it this way. But the understanding has been "spiritualized" so that these are spiritual Gentiles and the 144,000 are spiritual Jews. It's not an impossible doctrinal construction. In other words, even if we changed our doctrine back to claiming that the "other sheep" referred to physical Gentiles [non-Jews], and that non-Jews (like Cornelius) would be brought into the same pen after Jesus died, this doesn't mean that anything would necessarily change with respect to who physically partakes at the Memorial.

Fundamentalist Muslims?

Agree. This was going to be a win for the Witnesses no matter which way the court had ruled. Even the European Union had a statement in favor of the Witnesses. (Rejected for inclusion, of course.)
Putin, although he is far from fulfilling the role, has been projected as a kind of "hitler" recently in US mainstream news. It was a perfect time for persecution by his state if we were looking for publicity. For Witnesses personally, both worldwide and in Russia, this also energizes even the most inactive among us as persecution anywhere always does. All that is really lost is some of the material benefits of having a religious organization. Spiritual ties can grow even stronger under such circumstances.
But this is high profile publicity. The world has taken notice. Furthermore, as the recent post from Ann O'maly shows, it will hardly have any effect on the Russian Witnesses themselves, who will likely grow at the same rate or better.
 

@David Normand said: "really thought by some of the questions that the Justices asked that they would have dealt with us in an even handed manner."
Sounds like a decision already made. Sad day for Russia.
But............Jehovah and Jesus know what they are doing even if we are not always sure. This issue has resulted in massive media interest worldwide, and comment from all sorts of people, some in very high places. How long would we have taken to accomplish the same? And how much more with the appeal now? Reminds me of Paul when imprisoned in Rome. 
"my prison bonds for the sake of Christ have become public knowledge among all the Prae·toʹri·an Guard and all the rest. Now most of the brothers in the Lord have gained confidence because of my prison bonds, and they are showing all the more courage to speak the word of God fearlessly." Ph.1:13-14

 

Why banning the Jehovah’s Witnesses won’t work for Russia
BY EMILY B. BARAN APRIL 20TH 2017 The Supreme Court of Russia has a decision to make this week about whether to label the Jehovah’s Witnesses an extremist organization and liquidate its assets. This act would transform the religious community into a criminal network, and make individual Witnesses vulnerable to arrest simply for speaking about their faith with others. While the court case has attracted recent media attention, this move is the culmination of two decades of increasing state hostility to Witnesses. In the late 1990s, Moscow took the Witnesses to court to deny them legal standing in the city limits. After several years of court hearings, the city banned the organization. In more recent years, anti-extremism laws drafted in the wake of domestic terrorism have been turned against Witness magazines and books. Currently, over eighty publications have been placed on the federal list of extremist materials. Even their website is now illegal. So is My Book of Bible Stories, an illustrated book for children, listed alongside publications by terrorist organizations.
If the state criminalizes the Witnesses, it will represent a major deterioration in religious toleration in post-Soviet Russia. It will also put Russia at odds with the European Court of Human Rights, which has repeatedly ruled in favor of the Witnesses in the past two decades. It may make other minority faiths vulnerable to similar legal challenges. In the 1990s, scholars spoke of a newly opened religious marketplace, in which post-Soviet citizens, freed from the constraints of state-enforced atheism, shopped around among the faith traditions. It is fair to say that these days, this marketplace has fewer customers, fewer stalls, and more regulations.
If history is any guide, Russia will find it nearly impossible to eliminate Jehovah’s Witnesses. Soviet dissident author Vladimir Bukovsky once admiringly wrote of the Witnesses’ legendary persistence under ban. When the Soviet Union barred religious literature from crossing its borders, Witnesses set up underground bunkers to print illegal magazines for their congregations. When Soviet officials prohibited Witnesses from hosting religious services, they gathered in small groups in their apartments, often in the middle of the night. Sometimes they snuck away to nearby woods or out onto the vast steppe, where they could meet with less scrutiny. When the state told believers that they could not evangelize their faith to others, Witnesses chatted up their neighbors, coworkers, and friends. When these actions landed them in labor camps, Witnesses sought out converts among their fellow prisoners. Witnesses are certain to revive many of these tactics if placed in similar circumstances in the future.
Moreover, technology makes it far more difficult for Russia to control the religious practices of its citizens. Although the Witnesses’ official website is no longer available in Russia, individual members can easily share religious literature through email or dozens of other social media platforms and apps. While Soviet Witnesses had to write coded reports and hand-deliver them through an underground courier network, Witnesses today can text this information in seconds. Technology will also facilitate meeting times for religious services in private homes.
The Russian government simply does not have the manpower to enforce its own ban. It is hard to imagine that local officials could effectively prevent over 170,000 people across more than 2,000 congregations from gathering together multiple times per week, as Witnesses do worldwide. The case of Taganrog is instructive. Several hundred Witnesses lived there in 2009, when the city declared the organization illegal. A few years later, it convicted sixteen Witnesses for ignoring the ban and continuing to gather their congregations for services. The state spent over a year in investigations and court hearings for sixteen people, a tiny fraction of the total congregation, and then suspended the sentences and fines rather than waste more resources in following through on its punishment guidelines. There are not enough police officers in Russia to monitor the daily activities of each and every Witness, and the Witnesses know it. Under a ban, everyone will face more scrutiny, a few will be dealt more serious consequences, and most will continue practicing their faith regardless.
Russia may nonetheless decide that all of this conflict is worth it. After all, Soviet officials were fairly successful in relegating Witnesses to the margins of society. Few Russians will complain if Witnesses no longer come to knock on their door. After all, even Americans rarely have kind words for religious missionaries at their own doorsteps. In my own research, I have never heard a single Russian, other than a scholar, say anything positive about Witnesses. For the record, my experience with Americans has been similar. On a more basic level, Russian citizens may not even notice the Witnesses’ absence from public life. While the post-Soviet period saw a religious revival for all faiths, far fewer joined the Witnesses than the Russian Orthodox Church. For all their recent growth in membership, the Witnesses remain a tiny minority in a largely secular society.
The vocal determination of Witnesses not to acquiesce to state demands should not cause observers to overlook the very real damage a ban would do to this community. Yes, Witnesses have faced similar challenges before and have dealt with them. For decades, they held their baptisms in local rivers and lakes under cover of night. In the post-Soviet period, new members were finally able to celebrate their baptisms in full view of their fellow believers at public conventions. A long-time Witness who attended one of these events in the early 1990s recalled, “What happiness, what freedom!” A new ban would mean a return to this underground life, to a hushed ceremony in cold waters. This is not what freedom of conscience looks like in modern states.
Emily B. Baran is the author of Dissent on the Margins: How Jehovah’s Witnesses Defied Communism and Lived to Preach About It. Her work explores the shifting contours of dissent and freedom in the Soviet Union and its successor states. She is Assistant Professor of History at Middle Tennessee State University.

These are some thought-provoking quote from the Wt. 3/17 pp. 8-12
"However, Jehovah’s Witnesses refrain from treating religious leaders as ones who merit extraordinary honor, even though those leaders may expect it. False religion misrepresents God and distorts the teachings of his Word. Thus, we show religious leaders regard as fellow humans, but we do not show them special honor. We recall that Jesus denounced such men of his day as hypocrites and blind guides. (Matt. 23:23, 24"
"Such elders are recognized as humble spiritual shepherds. As evidence of their humility, they refuse to let themselves be treated as celebrities. In this they differ from many modern-day religious leaders and from those of the first century about whom Jesus said: “They like the most prominent place at evening meals and the front seats in the synagogues and the greetings in the marketplaces.”—Matt. 23:6, 7."
I can’t say I agree with the second paragraph.  Their word rules no different than the words of a Catholic priest. Both hear confessions, both judge.  And what about the “faithful and discreet slave”?  I have seen pictures on this forum easily depicting the GB as prominent figures.  Does this not also distort the teachings of God’s word?
When Jesus said, “Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time?”  (Matt 24:45), he is essentially saying, among all his faithful and wise servants, (whom he already has judged as such)  who will the master put in charge of the household?  He is not saying that the one in charge is the only faithful and wise servant.  At one time the Wt. taught that every anointed one was the “faithful and wise” slave.  Recently, it has boiled down to just the GB with no scriptural reason, except that it fulfills prophesy.  Rev 13:11,15; 16:13,14  But there is evidence in scripture that a “steward” over God’s household (which is all anointed ones, 1 Pet 4:17; Eph 2:21; 1 Pet 2:5,9; 1 Cor 3:16,17) can begin to “beat” his fellow slaves, by selfishly insisting on their own announcement as faithful and discreet prematurely, by insisting that the Lord returns also prematurely, (Matt 24:48) by judging them without cause.  (Matt 24:48)
 Each anointed one must be found “faithful and wise” upon Jesus’ return.  Matt 25:21
“When he noticed how the guests picked the places of honor at the table, he told them this parable:  “When someone invites you to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor, for a person more distinguished than you may have been invited.  If so, the host who invited both of you will come and say to you, ‘Give this person your seat.’ Then, humiliated, you will have to take the least important place. But when you are invited, take the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he will say to you, ‘Friend, move up to a better place.’ Then you will be honored in the presence of all the other guests.  For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”  Luke 14:7-11
It is also true that each one of us is to slave for Christ and not for men. Rom 14:4; James 4:12  The title of “publisher”, along with unbaptized publisher, circuit overseer, district overseer, pioneer, special pioneer, etc, all categorize the sheep by bestowing certain characteristics that one must take note of.  What is the difference between the Wt. doing this and Christendom “meriting certain honor” on individuals? 
Jesus said, "Why do you call me good?"  "No one is good--except God alone."  Mark 10:18
If Jesus never accepted honor, why would any man seek his own glory, expecting obedience from others because of his self-proclaimed title? 
The scenario of both a faithful steward as well as an evil steward present during the end time is evident in the scriptures.  One must discern who they both are by analyzing their “fruits”, their teachings.    Matt 24:48-51; Matt 7:15-20; John 15:4,5,8,16; Heb 13:15; Jude 1:12  Because we are all to be slaves of Christ, we are all responsible for our loyalty to pure truth.  Phil 1:9,10  The responsibility doesn’t just fall on the teacher, but on the student as well.  Jer 23:16-30; 5:30-31
Prov 2:1-15; Matt 7:7,8;  Zeph 2:3; Ps 26:4-7; 2 Cor 6:17; Rev 3:18

If authorities told you to stop using dozens of books, booklets, videos and tracts, and you had lots of these publications, then it would be very easy to make a mistake and accidentally bring a copy of one with you to a meeting or out in service. But the brothers at the Hall went to the trouble to put up a list of all the banned material so that there would be very few mistakes.
The brothers were so compliant that the authorities weren't able to build a case against them by catching Witnesses here and there who made a mistake. The brothers were extra compliant with the law, too compliant for the authorities to build the case they wanted against the brothers.
I don't know if you saw the videos, but they proved to be an embarrassment to the people who planted the evidence, and the fact that they are shown worldwide on jw.org makes them an embarrassment worldwide. That was one of the reasons to post the videos, to embarrass the authorities who had to cheat to create evidence against the JWs. There are at least three such incidents, and you can see video here:
https://www.jw.org/en/news/legal/by-region/russia/police-planting-evidence-video/
 

I'm glad. I always thought that the "evidence-planting" videos should be the most important piece of evidence in the case. Shows that the JWs are being too compliant and not giving local authorities the ammunition to play out their own prejudices against the JWs.
Also, they recognize that these videos have produced an embarrassment worldwide. No matter what the outcome, the jw.org site did all JWs a favor (worldwide) by putting these videos on the site.

This is interesting. But it is based on the idea that a religion can be declared extremist for the following types of issues, and I suppose it would fall under 'failure to fulfill their civic duty.' This brings it right back to the problem in the United States of "JWs" in 1917 (WTBTS) when the updated Espionage Act was enforced in 1918.
I thought the following was potentially important.
The prosecutors are probably concerned about setting precedents that could be used against religions more generally. The Ministry of Justice SHOULD be just as concerned, but are obviously not thinking about the implications of this ruling about "extremism" on any ad-hoc group of Russian Orthodox believers who might want to meet and discuss a specific area of interest that arises from Bible Study. Imagine if a group of Russian Orthodox believers prints summaries of their Bible studies that highlight new things they learned that are not being highlighted in the tenets of the Russian Orthodox church. Or what if their studies lead them to start a charity to care for injured Russian veterans but then, in promoting how wonderful their charity is, they compare themselves with other religions who have ignored the opportunity to create such a useful charity. They have just undermined the respect for other religions, and made themselves extremist. The prosecutors appear that they understand how this could backfire, and the MoJ seems not to care about being so careful -- knowing, I assume, that the Russian Orthodox church will always be legally untouchable. Yet, very secular leaders in their recent past have already proved that nothing is untouchable.

"Humility"
When a person is "known rich" or "looks rich" and buys a decent mode of transportation - many views that person as humble but when a person is "viewed poor" or "looks poor" and drives the same decent mode of transportation - many views that person as arrogant.
This is not about wealth, but the perspective. Might there be a difference between the definition of humility vs personal view of what "suits" an individual?
In some countries, may locals view the minorities as "minorities"(incl. migrants from "poor" countries) and when these "minorities act" not as what they want to view them - many say that they "lack humility".
Many fell on the same trap back in the first century, many expected the messiah to be someone prominent, handsome like David and maybe very tall also like Saul but the scripture indicated otherwise. - for "No stately form does he have, nor any splendor; And when we see him, his appearance does not draw us to him. " (Isa 53:2) ft:" Or “there is no special appearance that we should desire him.” "and yet, he is a known carpenter and declaring that he is God's Son - " do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? " (John 10:36)
Now, we view Jesus to be humble because we know his position before he took a human form (Phil 2:7). But just imagine living in the time of Jesus - those Pharisees and Sadducees views him otherwise. (John 10:36)
Something to think about... (Lu 6:38; Phil 2:3)

From Jeremiah 26:7-16:
"And the priests and the prophets and all the people heard Jeremiah speaking these words in the house of Jehovah.
"So when Jeremiah had finished speaking all that Jehovah had commanded him to speak to all the people, then the priests and the prophets and all the people seized him and said: “You will surely die…
"The priests and the prophets said to the princes and to all the people: “This man deserves the death penalty, because he has prophesied against this city just as you have heard with your own ears.”…
"Then the princes and all the people said to the priests and the prophets: “This man does not deserve the death penalty, for he spoke to us in the name of Jehovah our God.”   
……….
It is always this way. The princes have no problem with it. It is the priests and the prophets that oppose religious freedom.
Perhaps it will be that way with Putin, if he can withdraw his head from the lock of the Church.
 

I know you weren't trying to be argumentative. If anything, it was my response that probably seemed so. But I did it because of something very subtle that should be pointed out when it happens. Here was what I responded to more precisely:
The first sentence is absolutely true. The second sentence is a form of idolatry. We are not devoted to the Governing Body, just as the early Christians were not devoted to the apostles.
Moses was the leader of the Israelites. The Israelites could be "devoted" to Moses as the representative of Jehovah's authority. And by being the representative Lawgiver he was even the master of their "faith." The Governing Body should not be the leaders of Jehovah's people. Jesus, as Lawgiver, gave an entirely new commandment that replaced the Mosaic system.
(Matthew 23:10) 10 Neither be called leaders, for your Leader is one, the Christ.
This doesn't mean we don't need persons who can lead by their example and their faith, but we don't want any to be called leaders, masters, governors. The congregation can have many teachers, but we don't look to just one place for those teachers, unless it's Jesus Christ.
(2 Corinthians 1:23, 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.
Our faith and salvation must depend on no man, because in the Christian congregation, it must run directly from Jesus to our own heart and mouth.
(Romans 10:5-10) 5 For Moses writes about the righteousness that is by the Law: “The man who does these things will live by means of them.” 6 But the righteousness resulting from faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ that is, to bring Christ down, 7 or, ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ that is, to bring Christ up from the dead.” 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your own mouth and in your own heart”; that is, “the word” of faith, which we are preaching. 9 For if you publicly declare with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and exercise faith in your heart that God raised him up from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one exercises faith for righteousness, but with the mouth one makes public declaration for salvation.
(1 Corinthians 10:2-4) 2 and all got baptized into Moses by means of the cloud and of the sea, 3 and all ate the same spiritual food 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they used to drink from the spiritual rock that followed them, and that rock meant the Christ.
(Hebrews 3:4-6) . . .. 5 Now Moses was faithful as an attendant in all the house of that One as a testimony of the things that were to be spoken afterward, 6 but Christ was faithful as a son over God’s house. We are His house if, indeed, we hold on firmly to our freeness of speech and the hope of which we boast down to the end.
Moses was not a pattern for the Governing Body, or even the apostles. Moses was a pattern for Christ, where under a new covenant, there was no need for any other go-betweens. There is no tent set up by man. There is no need for each one to teach his fellow citizen.
(Hebrews 8:1-11) 8 Now this is the main point of what we are saying: We have such a high priest as this, and he has sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, 2 a minister of the holy place and of the true tent, which Jehovah set up, and not man. . . .  6 But now Jesus has obtained a more excellent ministry because he is also the mediator of a correspondingly better covenant, which has been legally established on better promises. . . . : “‘Look! The days are coming,’ says Jehovah, ‘when I will make with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant. . . . 10 “‘For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days,’ says Jehovah. ‘I will put my laws in their mind, and in their hearts I will write them. And I will become their God, and they will become my people. 11 “‘And they will no longer teach each one his fellow citizen and each one his brother, saying: “Know Jehovah!” For they will all know me, from the least to the greatest of them.
The ones taking the lead could include the elders making up a governing body. But it's every elder in every congregation who takes the lead by speaking to us, encouraging us, and showing faith and conduct that we can imitate -- and so every elder, by that definition, is therefore a "governing one."
(Hebrews 13:7, 17) . . .Remember those who are taking the lead among you, who have spoken the word of God to you, and as you contemplate how their conduct turns out, imitate their faith. . . . Be obedient to those who are taking the lead among you and be submissive, for they are keeping watch over you
(1 Peter 5:1-4) . . .I make this appeal to the elders among you: 2 Shepherd the flock of God under your care, serving as overseers, not under compulsion, but willingly before God; not for love of dishonest gain, but eagerly; 3 not lording it over those who are God’s inheritance, but becoming examples to the flock. 4 And when the chief shepherd has been made manifest, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.
It appears that elders do not take the lead by governing, because that is a form of "lording it over" (same as the words for "master over" as in "we are not masters over your faith.") Elders, and therefore every governing body member and member of any council of elders, leads by being examples to the flock. We submit to the counsel of elders when their advice is based on Christian experience, faith and conduct. We follow their example of hard work, and the loving and humble way in which they preside, and their manner of teaching.

There are several of these short videos of this type here. They are concise and useful for learning. But from the ones I've watched, there is a kind of agenda running through them that repeatedly tries to claim that the Greek alphabet was derived from the Hebrew. This particular video, above, states it explicitly.
This appears to be wrong, though. The Hebrew alphabet was derived from the Phoenician. The Greek alphabet was also derived from the Phoenician. Otherwise how could the Greek alphabet be more closely tied to the Phoenician than the Hebrew? Several of the Phoenician letters made it into the Greek alphabet but never made it into the Hebrew. 

Actually the focus on this sister was really your contribution (admittedly early on) to a discussion generated by an original post about a number of people claiming "total control" whilst being members of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia. So it isn't really going off topic, yet.
I appreciate your concern regarding what you see as a dangerous line of reasoning however, but remember this is a public forum. We are all at liberty to stay clear of discussions that we feel stray across our personal boundaries for consideration.

I put this under "controversial" because I was going to tell about a "Family Night" experience that was a bit troubling. But I'm going to tell about another one that was more funny at the time, and I didn't realize how serious it was until a few months later. Here's the background:
Family Night is a kind of talent show along with some experiences that helped Bethelites get to know each other better. It was held in the local Brooklyn Heights Kingdom Hall attached to the back of the 107 Building, but it had less than 500 seats, and there were at least 3 times that many Bethelites who wanted to attend. It was very popular, and soon the "shows" were actually televised via CCTV.
There's a song that was written by a Witness many years ago that became internationally famous, sung by Frank Sinatra and Doris Day, for example. During Family Night, a small choir sang a nice rendition of the song with different words, that some might call a parody, but it wasn't meant to be a funny parody. It was "Sentimental Journey" written by Bud Homer. The lyrics can be found here: http://www.lyricsfreak.com/d/doris+day/sentimental+journey_20279019.html
The original lyrics included a stanza:
Seven, that's the time we leave, at seven
I'll be waitin' up for heaven
Countin' every mile of railroad track
That takes me back
In the Family Night version, this was changed to:
Seven, Bethel text begins at seven
To the fact'ry I'll be headin'
. . . . To serve the Lord
For his reward.
At the rehearsals, I once or twice sat only a couple seats away from Bert Schroeder. When the words were sung, either Brother Gehring or perhaps someone else on the Family Night Committee leaned over to question Schroeder (I think it was Bill G., but can't say for sure): "You think those words are alright? Doesn't sound too 'works centered?'"
Schroeder chuckled, "The words are fine. If they don't like it, let them stew!"
I had no idea who these people were who would "stew" at the words. This was before I had heard about any "apostasy" brewing. But I couldn't help thinking of a brother I worked with, in construction, just a couple years earlier, before I came to Bethel. (We set up the frames for pouring concrete basements/walls, and I also learned to do some "curb and guttering.") Now this brother was not an elder, and I always figured it was partly for his propensity to curse. But whenever I made a mistake, I'd ask if I should do something over, and his typical response was: "It's fine. If they don't like it, @#$% them!"
I left that evening rehearsal thinking that Brother Schroeder had just said the equivalent of "@#$%  them!" but had found a much nicer way of saying it than old Brother M--- back home. I wasn't even thinking about who these people were who might "stew." It was at least a year later when the two books "Commentary on the Letter of James" and "Choosing the Best Way of Life" were released, and it was only after reading those books and listening to some of the arguments over them that I finally understood the controversy.

Here's the story. Anyone recognize it?
A man marries a black woman.
People around him are not happy about it.
So God punishes one of those people by turning that person partly white. 
 

Numbers 12:1,10

Hardly, otherwise there would be no activity in the preaching work and related matters.
Sensational though these snippets of information may appear to be, as presented here, they only seem to serve to reinforce evidence that the Society is following Jesus' direction recorded at Luke 16:9.
It seems to me that, in this matter the principle of Rom 14:14 applies, and that Paul's words at Romans 14:4 are appropriate (as they are for us all):
"Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for Jehovah can make him stand".
 
 

Quite true. At first, I wondered if I should have started out with this same point about what it means to be "devoted" to something. In the original verse, the idea of devotion is just as well translated without even using the word "devotion." It could also have been properly translated: "And they continued steadfastly [proskarteréō] with the instructions of the apostles."  (Acts 2:42) or perhaps, "And they persevered  [proskarteréō] in the instructions of the apostles..."
In fact, the New World Translation does not usually use the word "devoted" when translating this word:
(Acts 1:14) With one purpose all of these were persisting [proskarteréō] in prayer, together with some women and Mary the mother of Jesus and with his brothers.
(Acts 2:46) 46 And day after day they were in constant [proskarteréō] attendance in the temple with a united purpose,. . .
(Acts 8:13) 13 Simon himself also became a believer, and after being baptized, he continued [proskarteréō] with Philip; and he was amazed at seeing the signs and great powerful works taking place.
(Colossians 4:2) 2 Persevere [proskarteréō] in prayer, remaining awake in it with thanksgiving.
But this is still a very useful point about being "devoted" to your wife, and a wife being "devoted" to her husband. You could even argue that slaves should be devoted to their masters, and children be devoted to their parents. In Acts 2:46 these same brothers we have been talking about were also "devoted" to their attendance at the temple. And in Acts 8:13, Simon, the former magician, was "devoted" to Philip. But the point about "devotion" to one's spouse is especially useful here, specifically because of the immediate context of Ephesians 5 & 6:
(Ephesians 5:21-6:5) 21 Be in subjection to one another in fear of Christ.22 Let wives be in subjection to their husbands as to the Lord, 23 because a husband is head of his wife just as the Christ is head of the congregation, he being a savior of this body. 24 In fact, as the congregation is in subjection to the Christ, wives should also be to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, continue loving your wives, just as the Christ also loved the congregation and gave himself up for it, . . .  28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. A man who loves his wife loves himself, 29 for no man ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cherishes it, just as the Christ does the congregation, 30 because we are members of his body. . . .  33 Nevertheless, each one of you must love his wife as he does himself; on the other hand, the wife should have deep respect for her husband. 6 Children, be obedient to your parents in union with the Lord, for this is righteous. . . .  5 Slaves, be obedient to your human masters,. . .
It's very true that this sense of devotion does include a kind of "subjection to the lead" of another person, just as you imply that we should be in a kind of devoted subjection and obedience to imperfect men. But notice one more verse in that same passage that I didn't highlight yet:
(Ephesians 5:21) 21 Be in subjection to one another . . .
In other words, the way in which you should be in subjection to the Governing Body and other elders, for example, is in the same way that each member of the Governing Body should be in subjection to you. That's the way it is with all fellow members of the congregation. We are in subjection to each other.
This is why, even among Jehovah's Witnesses, it should not be possible for us to think of a certain group as if they make up a group of human leaders.
(Luke 22:25-27) 25 But he said to them: “The kings of the nations lord it over them, and those having authority over them are called Benefactors. 26 You, though, are not to be that way. But let the one who is the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the one taking the lead as the one ministering. 27 For which one is greater, the one dining or the one serving? Is it not the one dining? But I am among you as the one serving.
Our "food" -- our spiritual nourishment -- is doing Jehovah's will with respect to each other; it's especially the encouragement, comfort and support we all give to one another. (John 4:34; Hebrews 10:24,25) This encouragement and spiritual food can include instruction and guidance and counsel and information from the elders, and therefore also from the Governing Body. We respect all that counsel deeply.  But we don't devote ourselves to the Governing Body, except in the same sense that the Governing Body members also devote themselves to you. There is no separate Body within the Body. They are not in the position of a husband over the congregation, and we are not in the position of a wife in the congregation. We are all a part of the body of the whole congregation. But Jesus Christ is the Leader and Head (and Husband) and the rest of us are slaves serving each other. Some are shepherds and stewards, but this does not make those ones our Leader, in any sense.
In fact, as a shepherd, every elder takes on the responsibility of being "God's steward:"
(Titus 1:7)  For as God’s steward, an overseer must be free from accusation. . .
And it is every steward's responsibility to be faithful and discreet:
(1 Corinthians 4:2) In this regard, what is expected of stewards is that they be found faithful.
(Ephesians 5:15-17) 15 So keep strict watch that how you walk is not as unwise but as wise persons . . . keep perceiving what the will of Jehovah is.
 

I feel like I rather rudely steered this conversation to one that kept veering back to a problem I had with the words "devotion to imperfect men" which was tied to "devotion to the Governing Body." That wasn't the real gist of the original thread, so I'm thinking all that part of the discussion could be moved to a new thread. If that happens, perhaps the entire February 2017 study article that was referenced could be discussed. But I won't be adding more to that particular subject here.

I feel like I rather rudely steered this conversation to one that kept veering back to a problem I had with the words "devotion to imperfect men" which was tied to "devotion to the Governing Body." That wasn't the real gist of the original thread, so I'm thinking all that part of the discussion could be moved to a new thread. If that happens, perhaps the entire February 2017 study article that was referenced could be discussed. But I won't be adding more to that particular subject here.

Just a P.S. really.
Ambiguity and misunderstanding can arise when using the word "devote". It has a range of meanings today that may obscure understanding the word as it is used in the NWT to translate original language expressions in mostly the Hebrew and to a lesser extent the Greek Scriptures.
Exodus 20:5 is relevant in this context; also 1Tim 4:8. As is the Miriam Webster definition:
Definition of devotion
1a :  religious fervor :  piety
1b :  an act of prayer or private worship —usually used in plural during his morning devotions c :  a religious exercise or practice other than the regular corporate (see corporate 2) worship of a congregation
2a :  the act of dedicating something to a cause, enterprise, or activity :  the act of devoting; the devotion of a great deal of time and energy
2b :  the fact or state of being ardently dedicated and loyal "her devotion to the cause";  filial devotion
3 (obsolete) :  the object of one's devotion
Probably another thread required to take this further.

I think the best criteria is mentioned in Zeph. 2:3 :"2  Before the decree takes effect,Before the day passes by like chaff,Before the burning anger of Jehovah comes upon you,+Before the day of Jehovah’s anger comes upon you, 3  Seek Jehovah,+ all you meek ones* of the earth,Who observe his righteous decrees.*Seek righteousness, seek meekness.*Probably* you will be concealed on the day of Jehovah’s anger.+
Even if we are not with one another and we are alone we must be faithful and loyal to Jehovah. As to uncertainties I really like Bro. Jacksons talk at the annual meeting "Expect the Unexpected".