JW Insider

I can see similarities in the use of jw.org logos as trinkets or ornaments or badges in the way that others might use crosses without religious significance.
However, I can't really see a similarity between the way many witnesses view trinkets and cakes etc. bearing the jw.org symbol and the way in which the cross is treated religiously by diverse members of Christendom.
The links below might illustrate my point:
http://www.latitudenews.com/story/faithful-in-philippines-embrace-christ-and-his-crucifixion/
http://blogs.ft.com/photo-diary/2016/01/kissing-the-cross/
http://catholicphilly.com/2016/03/think-tank/catholic-spirituality/salvation-comes-through-the-cross-not-a-magic-wand-pope-says/
Anyway, I apologise for deviating a bit from your topic which I note is about the quality of research in the 1985 Reasoning Book article on the Cross. I am sure this line of discussion will come up more appropriately somewhere else so will leave it until then.

The evidence suggests that an upright stake is the least likely option. But as was said, we cannot be certain what shape stauros Jesus died on. The problem is how the Org. has made it look as if the upright stake was the most likely (or only) option and ignored the rest of scholarship on the matter that demonstrates the opposite likelihood.
Various depictions of cross shapes exist in all sorts of cultures, past and present, Christian and non-Christian. So? 
 
The Bible doesn't describe it directly, but there are hints. Unfortunately, the rest of the Society's article stumbles into the same pitfalls as the Reasoning book does. 
I thought I explained. What is it you are unclear on?
 

The following post quotes originally came from this thread: 
Rather than take the thread totally off topic, I thought I would make some comments in a new one.
I'm commenting on this post, likewise not to create a firestorm, but to flag up how we ought to check sources of information rather than automatically taking on trust that what is written is sound.
Regarding information on the internet, the August 15, 2011 Watchtower put forward some criteria by which we can critically assess its factuality:
"Before trusting it, ask: (1) Who published this material? What are the author’s credentials? (2) Why was this published? What motivated the writer? Is there any bias? (3) Where did the author get the information? Does he supply sources that can be checked? (4) Is the information current?" - p. 4 
It's good practice to apply these basic principles to anything we read - even material produced by the Organization. 
It's also worth remembering Christians do not claim Jesus was executed on a crux ansata or ankh-shaped cross (think of the practical problems for a start). But let's look at how the Reasoning book approaches the wider question of whether Jesus was executed on a cross at all.
 
"(2) ... Is there any bias?"
Absolutely. The Reasoning book's quote from the Imperial Bible Dictionary is chopped up, and omits key information that would allow the reader to understand that, while stauros originally had one meaning, by the time of Jesus the word had evolved and was understood differently. The omitted parts from the quote are in red.
"The Greek word for cross, [stau·ros′], properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling [fencing in] a piece of ground. But a modification was introduced as the dominion and usages of Rome extended themselves through Greek-speaking countries. Even amongst the Romans the crux (from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole, and this always remained the more prominent part."
The quote continues to cite Seneca's (4 BC-65 AD) eye-witness testimony about 3 different kinds of crucifixion regularly employed, the last of which was where the victim's arms were extended on a patibulum. The dictionary then adds:
"There can be no doubt, however, that the latter sort was was the more common, and that about the period of the gospel age crucifixion was usually accomplished by suspending the criminal on a cross piece of wood." - p. 376
You can read the Imperial Bible Dictionary article for yourself here:
https://archive.org/stream/imperialbibledi00fairgoog#page/n402/mode/2up
So why do Watch Tower publications show Jesus on a stake with hands over his head instead of on the traditional cross? Reading an extended quote from the Imperial Bible Dictionary makes the reason for Watchtower's divergence on this matter unclear.
There's no problem with this section as crosses were made of wood from trees. Not only that, but trees had branches upon which arms could be outstretched either side of the body, above it, upside-down or however the executioner wanted to position the poor victim. 
Of course, the Org. no longer translates Jesus' mode of execution as 'impaling' because, well, he wasn't impaled; he was suspended from a stauros by being nailed to it. Impaling is an entirely different kind of torturous end. 
This reference, then, doesn't help explain why Watch Tower publications depict Jesus on an upright stake either.
"(1) ... What are the author’s credentials? ... (3) Where did the author get the information? Does he supply sources that can be checked? (4) Is the information current?" 
Not only is this another outdated source, but psychical research enthusiast J.D. Parsons does not provide references for his comments here (publication viewable online). Historical, linguistic and gospel evidence contradicts him. It's a pity he didn't consult works like the Imperial Bible Dictionary before he wrote his book.
"(3) Where did the author get the information? Does he supply sources that can be checked? (4) Is the information current?" 
This is another old work, this time one edited by E.W. Bullinger. Appendix No. 162 does supply some sources, but it also repeats some of Alexander Hislop's and others' mistaken ideas, e.g. the Babylonian sun-god cross. Not only that, but Bullinger (or whoever the author of Appendix No. 162 was) was evidently unaware of the Oxyrhyncus discoveries which showed that the understanding of stauros as being a two-pieced cross shape occurred in 2nd (and possibly 1st) century Christian writings.
See the Companion Bible entry here: https://archive.org/stream/CompanionBible.Bullinger.1901-Haywood.2005/CompBib.Bull.Hay.NT.Append.24.#page/n797/mode/2up
In fact, many of these old publications the Org. uses as support, and that are contemporaneous with one another, seem to feed off each other's sources, regurgitating them in their own works. The Two Babylons was published in book form in 1858. It's always good to keep this in mind when reading older references after that time because it often influenced other theologians' work - especially if their theology was less mainstream. Vine's Expository Dictionary's entry on 'Cross' is another notable example (see below).
That's assuming that all the available evidence has been presented to the Reasoning book reader. As we've seen, it hasn't but has been cherry-picked from flawed, out-of-date works, which often recycle the same sources, in order to force a predetermined conclusion. When we dig into those sources a little deeper, we find that Watchtower's rejection of the cross and adoption of an upright stake to depict Jesus' execution is based on insubstantial grounds. If we research the subject more thoroughly, although we will never be certain what shape stauros Jesus died on, we will find that the weight of evidence indicates the opposite view to that of the Organization. 
 
What does this have to do with how Christians regard the cross? Cross shapes occur in different cultures, times and contexts. Whatever significance non-Christians placed on cross shapes (4 cardinal points, 4 year markers, 4 key stages in the Sun's apparent seasonal or daily paths around the Earth, circle of life, etc.) has nothing to do with any symbolism Christians attach to the cross Jesus was believed to have been executed on.
"(2) ... Is there any bias? (3) Where did the author get the information? Does he supply sources that can be checked? (4) Is the information current?"
Vine's comment about the two-beamed cross's Chaldean origin actually came from Hislop (Two Babylons, p. 197-8). It is false. 
Hislop was rabidly anti-Catholic and grasping at anything to discredit it, no matter how outlandish. However, in doing so, he was undermining aspects of biblical Christianity too. So, yes, one could say he was biased - so much so that he imagined ancient pagan-Catholic connections everywhere. He provides no historical evidence that the Babylonian god Tammuz was represented by a Tau and besides, the Babylonians didn't write in Greek! Their writing was logographic and the signs for Tammuz (Dumuzi) don't look anything like crosses. 

 
On the other hand, the Paleo-Hebrew script has a letter tav. Guess what it looks like:
http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Grammar/Unit_One/Pictograms/pictograms.html#
Shocking, hey?
"(3) Where did the author get the information? Does he supply sources that can be checked? (4) Is the information current?"
Again, a 19th/early 20th century work. Tyack doesn't provide any sources for his statements. However the concepts seem to be from the Two Babylons book. These connections between the cross and Tammuz plus other ancient near eastern deities don't go back beyond the 1850s and Hislop's book - not that I've been able to trace, anyway.
Around and around we go. This information is straight out of Two Babylons! Look:
https://archive.org/stream/worshipdeadoror00garngoog#page/n268/mode/2up
Please pay particular notice to the references in the footnotes on that page.
I'll post separately about all those cross symbols and the conclusions Hislop jumps to.
Again, what does this have to do with how Christians view the cross Jesus is believed to have died on? 
This is a quote from the same Bullinger work discussed above.
Now, this is a whole different issue.
And is it a matter of degree? Remember how obsessed many JWs are nowadays with the JW.org logo, maybe because of its associations in the JW's mind with true worship, brotherhood, divine blessings, etc. They put it on anything from tiepins to cake. Likewise, many Christians associate the cross with Jesus' love for humankind, victory over death/Satan, hope, etc., and so they like to have a symbolic reminder of that or use it as a visible expression of their faith. I guess it depends on whether one considers a line has been stepped over between expression of faith and worshipful veneration, and there is a certain level of subjectivity in that assessment.
Here we go again. An allusion to Hislopian baloney.
And an upright stake is NOT phallic?
'Some commentators' - who? The Reasoning book doesn't enlighten us.
While I agree that idolatry is against biblical principles, the Org's reluctance to entertain at least the possibility that Jesus historically died on a cross is based on deeply flawed, outdated, and circular reasoning.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding Hislop's discussion of various cross shapes on p. 197 of the Two Babylons book:
Fig. 43 shows 5 different cross shapes.
No. 1 is the familiar crucifix shape and comes from Kitto's Biblical Cyclopedia, Vol. 1, p. 495 (viewable online - as with all of these references, just Google). This reference is just a discussion of 'Cross' and Lipsius' various pictures/descriptions of this means of execution.
No. 2 is similar to No. 1 but slanted. The pic comes from Sir W. Betham's Etruria, Vol. 1, p. 54 (viewable online). This references the Etruscan alphabet. Hislop's picture is just one of the letters he's picked out.
No. 3 is like No. 1 except with a slightly curved crosspiece. This is from Bunsen's Egypt's Place in Universal History, Vol. 1, p. 450 (viewable online). Hislop's picture is one of the Coptic letters of the alphabet - a tei. He doesn't bother with the other cross-shaped letters in the Coptic alphabet on pp. 448-450 - not even the tau on p. 449!
No. 4 is similar to an ankh. Hislop thinks it's a cross (the sign of Tammuz) attached to the circle of the sun (p. 198). He provides no reference for this one.
No. 5 is a cross within a circle. This is used as another example of Tammuz being associated with the sun and the picture comes from Stephen's Incidents of Travel in Central America, Vol. 2, p. 344, Plate 2 (viewable online) where an indigenous person's belt is decorated with the symbol.
Hislop uses these sources and cobbles together isolated cross symbols - an instrument of execution, letters of the Etruscan and Coptic alphabets, an ankh and the belt decoration of a Central American Indian. These all form the basis of his argument that,
a) The Christian cross is not a Christian emblem.
(He only establishes that cross shapes occur in all sorts of places and contexts.)
b) The cross originates from the mystic Tau of the Chaldeans and Egyptians.
(An unsupported assertion pulled out of the air - none of his examples are linked to Chaldea.)
c) The letter T is "the initial letter of Tammuz - which, in Hebrew, [is] radically the same as ancient Chaldee" (p. 197).
(It's already been discussed on this thread that, while Paleo-Hebrew indeed has a cross-shaped Tav, the Babylonians wrote in cuneiform and their logographic signs making up the word Dumuzi/Tammuz do not resemble a cross.)
d) Tammuz was identified with the sun.
(Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of Babylonian deities knows that Shamash was the god identified with the sun and Marduk may also have had solar connections - not Tammuz. Tammuz was a shepherd-god of agriculture, fertile lands, food and vegetation.)
Hislop's conclusions about how the Christian cross originates in Babylonian worship are therefore founded on ... nothing.

Liked the point about using news on site to find names of brothers going through suffering and trying to pronounce those names in his prayers. Good reminder that prayer should not be the same overused, generic phrases.

You know, you may be correct in your statement that Russians are very very family oriented. However, The Russian government decriminalizing of physical spouse abuse would seem to be at odd with your statement and also lend credence that the Russian legal attack against Jehovah's Witnesses is based upon something else entirely. Could it be that the Russian authorities are using family problems as a pretext rather than really getting to the heart of the matter which is that Jehovah's Witnesses don't support the military and also siphon members away from the Russian orthodox church? 

@Eoin Joyce Wow! I was just thinking about this same point last night for the current thread on Christ's power and authority. In order for us to get a sense of Jehovah's majesty, there must be some extent to which we need certain images in our head, like a crown, a throne, royal garb, a scepter, etc. Jehovah must know that these images are helpful to understand his Sovereignty. The images of a kingdom --with all the glorious splendor of a central palace, a sizable realm, along with an innumerable entourage of soldiers, servants, slaves, messengers at the king's command-- probably carries about the same meaning from the time of the earliest empires until now.
Clearly there is an element of anthropomorphism in the imagery, because a perfect spirit being needs nothing physical.
But the fact that Jehovah is a Sovereign or King is important to the concept of his Sovereignty and Kingdom. That Jehovah is at the top of a heavenly hierarchy and is all-powerful is conveyed immediately with these images.
As Jesus is also a heavenly spirit creature, the same would be true of his Kingdom, too. Obviously, many of the disciples had trouble "spiritualizing" some of the concepts about God's Kingdom through Christ. They considered the physical seat of the Kingdom to be earthly Jerusalem, rather than the Jerusalem above. He spoke of his Father's house as having many mansions, but he also had to remind them that hierarchical positions in that kingdom were not given the same meaning that they might have on earth. Heaven is a place "not made with hands."
Clearly, the same goes for the term "Bride of Christ" too. In heaven, where "in the resurrection there is neither male or female," Jesus marries a good number of "male virgins." Marriage carries with it the idea of union, love, closeness, loyalty, and an unbreakable bond. The physical concepts of marriage do not apply.
Therefore, even terms like "Father" and "Son" carry an element of anthropomorphism.

The biggest things that came from "lights or flashes" as the "GB" claimed at the time were 1925, 1935, and the "higher powers" of Romans 13 (not civil authorities, but Jehovah and Jesus). We've since dropped all three of those interpretations. Romans 13 was considered to be one of the most "inspired" of all the teachings that the GB (Rutherford) ever came up with, and was even made to be the fulfillment of prophecy. By that I mean that prophecy was supposedly fulfilled by the very fact that the interpretation was made known, and that coming up with this (wrong) interpretation had proved the superiority of the Watchtower over Christendom's teachers. Since then, we have gone back to teaching what Russell and Christendom had taught about Romans 13.
(Romans 13:1-6) 13 Let every person be in subjection to the superior authorities, for there is no authority except by God; the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God. 2 Therefore, whoever opposes the authority has taken a stand against the arrangement of God; those who have taken a stand against it will bring judgment against themselves. 3 For those rulers are an object of fear, not to the good deed, but to the bad. Do you want to be free of fear of the authority? Keep doing good, and you will have praise from it; 4 for it is God’s minister to you for your good. But if you are doing what is bad, be in fear, for it is not without purpose that it bears the sword. It is God’s minister, an avenger to express wrath against the one practicing what is bad. 5 There is therefore compelling reason for you to be in subjection, not only on account of that wrath but also on account of your conscience. 6 That is why you are also paying taxes; for they are God’s public servants constantly serving this very purpose. There may have been a tiny bit of ambiguity about the exact phrase "superior authorities" (or "higher powers"). But the teaching about Romans 13 was not at all necessary to make the point we were then making from it. More importantly, it didn't change the meaning of its own context, which makes the same older point, and there were still other scriptures that made the same older point that Romans 13 had previously been understood to make:
(John 19:10, 11) . . .Do you not know that I have authority to release you and I have authority to execute you?” 11 Jesus answered him: “You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been granted to you from above. . . . (1 Timothy 2:1, 2) . . ., 2 concerning kings and all those who are in high positions, so that we may go on leading a calm and quiet life with complete godly devotion and seriousness. We already knew from other scriptures that Jehovah and Jesus were superior authorities. We already had the Bible teaching that "We should obey God as ruler rather than men." (Acts 5:29)  So I'm not sure why anyone thought it was necessary to make a scripture in Romans mean something other than what was already clear from the context. Perhaps Rutherford thought he had to be definitive as a way to compete with the kind of respect that had been afforded Russell. Perhaps it was a way to show that we could make definitive statements about teachings that were not obvious on their own. It was to show that Rutherford had taken a very powerful stand against the authority of the civil powers by interpreting them out of Romans 13:1.
Similarly, calling the end of the anointed calling in 1935 a "flash of light" was evidently done for the same reason: there was no specific, definitive, scriptural statement about a certain time when the "door to the heavenly calling" would be closed, so it became a point of claimed superiority that we (the GB) were able to come up with this one.
But to me, these aren't mistakes that reflect badly at all on the "faithful and discreet slave" because that phrase is apparently not significant in terms of making a point about a special group assigned to serve up true doctrines at the proper time. That would mean that the phrase is not about a specific set of men who will be punished if they serve up mistakes in their spiritual food. All of us must learn to discard tradition where it makes the word of God invalid, and all of us must learn to be faithful and discreet in our stewardship within the household of faith. All of us must answer for our lack of humility when we tell a Bible student that we know that a certain scripture must mean this or that, when we have not questioned it thoroughly to be sure. It might please men that we accept their word without questioning it, but it does not please Jehovah. So, one more time for this verse:
(Galatians 1:10) . . .Is it, in fact, men I am now trying to persuade or God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I would not be Christ’s slave.  

That is a very simple example. Those who wish to teach should always guard their teaching. It's possible to say two completely different things about the "other sheep" and yet cause no divisions, and always speak in agreement. Here is an example:
Pretend this is a quote from the first meeting you attended in your congregation:
"When Jesus spoke of having other sheep which are not of this fold he could have been referring to the fact that he was at that time addressing his Jewish apostles and disciples, and he asked them only to go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. So it may be that when he spoke of having other sheep who would later be brought in to the same flock under the same shepherd, that he was preparing them for something that would prove to become a "sticking point" for some, it would "shock" some of them, and some would have to overcome long-held beliefs and prejudices to get the full impact of the fact that they would very soon -- within just a few months -- need to accept Gentiles into their congregations. But remember that Jesus did not say exactly what he meant at this point, so we shouldn't be saying that we know for sure. It's something to think about however isn't it? Because, if this is what he meant, it would show that Jesus was, like a good shepherd, gently nudging the flock in the right direction, preparing them, for some "rocky terrain" as it were. As with other things, they might not have been ready to hear it all at once, but they could look back and say: Oh that's right, remember when Jesus was with us, he told us about this matter.  etc. etc. ...the olive tree of Romans and Revelation, etc." Then the next week in the other congregation:
"When Jesus spoke of having other sheep which are not of this fold he could have been referring to the fact that the apostles and disciples who were listening to him had a special privilege of being part of the flock at that particular time, but that there were other things they just weren't ready to know at the time. Notice that Jesus doesn't say exactly who these persons would be. Perhaps it is something that would be revealed over time. We know that the book of Revelation is a book that was not immediately clear to the disciples at the time it was written, yet it contained a lot of things that would be revealed over time. The very name of the book indicates that it is about things to be "revealed." Perhaps, Revelation 7 is giving us a glimpse of who these other sheep are. Recall, that Jesus spoke to the disciples and called them a "little flock." Yet they clearly grew to become thousands in just the first few short years after Pentecost. Was there a separate group that could be called a "great crowd" even when compared with thousands? In the 7th chapter we have a group of 144,000 which would probably seem to be a huge group to most of those first century Christian disciples. They would be imagining a group that was as large or perhaps larger than any group they had ever seen before at one time.  Perhaps when they attended yearly festivals at Jerusalem. But now we have this group compared with an even bigger crowd, a great crowd that no man could number. It must be in the millions! It's true that Revelation 7 indicates that the 144,000 were from the Jewish nation, and these perhaps "millions" would be from all nations, Gentiles. But notice how the tribes were each numbered 12,000. Could this indicate that we are not speaking of literal tribes of Jews but this is a reference to "spiritual Israel" -- meaning all the chosen, holy nation of kings and priests? And if this is so, then this group of 144,000 could very well mean that those with the heavenly hope are limited to 144,000 kings and priests. This could mean that Jesus was referring to the fact that those from the nations would be a great crowd of millions at the time of this great tribulation. This could also resolve the issue of how there would be a completion of Jehovah's purpose for a "new heavens" and also a "new earth." The Lord's prayer...etc." Note how neither one of these teachings is wrong. They are both expressed as possibilities, and they are both therefore true, because both are expressed as true possibilities. They are not expressed as something that you need to believe one way or another to be baptized. That is the same as starting a sect. This is why the scriptures speak of "starting a sect" as a problem of pride. Pride makes someone believe that a certain teaching that is not expressed, but only interpreted, must still be followed as a teaching.
In our case, we have a body of elders whom we respect writing up their reasons for the second view in the Watchtower magazine which is the way they share their understanding with all the congregations. There would be nothing wrong with this body of elders, if they all speak in agreement themselves on this matter, explaining all of the reasoning that went into their preference for the second version. If there are any dissenters, they should also explain exactly why the dissenter believed what he did, and explain how and why that particular idea was considered to be less likely. But it could never be called "wrong" as long as it also fit the rest of the scriptures. Neither of these can be called "wrong." They both might fit the scripture. One may seem more likely to some and one might seem more likely to others. 
Yet, the congregations could still be in perfect agreement about the way in which it could refer to either scenario. That would be "the truth" about it. Over time, it would be much easier to discuss it without pride, or without the fear that a change would destroy a body of truth. If you think about it, it's usually pride that results in any determination that a certain way of looking at something must be the only right way. Pride is both the source of such claims and it also feeds more pride when one begins to think that they are privileged to know the only correct interpretation when more than one are possible. Pride can also create class distinctions among us, a teaching class versus a learning class, for example, which might make it more difficult to admit when we need to extricate ourselves from a certain set of teachings that turn into a "tradition" over time, and become even harder to break.
 

Yes, this is exactly what I believe. I also agree with everything in Eoin's previous comments (above, from Friday). Of course, Hebrews 13:17 would have referred primarily to the local elders of local congregations, according to the same logic of the 2013 Watchtower, which Eoin also agreed with:
*** w13 7/15 p. 21 par. 7 “Who Really Is the Faithful and Discreet Slave?” ***
In the first century, there was hardly a reason to ask such a question. As we saw in the preceding article, the apostles could perform miracles and even transmit miraculous gifts as proof of divine backing. (Acts 5:12) So why would anyone need to ask who really was appointed by Christ to take the lead?
Therefore, there would be no need for Hebrews 13:17 to be reminding members of any congregation about following the lead of the apostles, or any type of "governing body" in the first century. So this verse must be referring to those who take the lead in the local congregations: "those taking the lead among you."  As members of the congregation could see how the faith and conduct of their overseers has turned out, they should imitate their faith, and in this way follow their lead in whatever "good works" they wish for their particular congregation to participate in.
In principle, however, Hebrews 13:17 still applies to all elders. In every way in which their conduct and actions can be rightly imitated, we should follow their lead:
(Hebrews 13:7) . . .Remember those who are taking the lead among you, who have spoken the word of God to you, and as you contemplate how their conduct turns out, imitate their faith.
 
Everything they do, should be appropriate to imitate. This is the type of obedience the context is talking about. We should be doing what they are doing. In the way that they show brotherly love and hospitality, we should too, according to Hebrews 13:1,2. In the same way that these brothers take the lead in visiting those in prison, we should too, according to the next verse (3). In the same way the "governing" body of elders sets the example in their own marriages, we should govern ourselves with their same moral example (verse 4). In the same way that this "governing body" shows itself "free from the love of money and content with the present things" (verse 5) we should obey that same example. In the same way in which this body of elders teaches us to not rely on legalistic rules but to rely on undeserved kindness as our motivation, we follow that, too (verse 9). These are the kinds of things that the body of elders will take the lead in; this is the scriptural context that we are "obedient" to:
(Hebrews 13:16) .Moreover, do not forget to do good and to share what you have with others, for God is well-pleased with such sacrifices.
 
And this doing "good works and sharing what you have with others" is, of course, the doctrine that this particular body of elders should be teaching by example. Where we fall short and need assistance or counsel, this body of elders should also be able to admonish us and encourage us with their own example. This is why nothing they do should be hidden from any of us. There should be no secrecy among such a body of elders. The verse you quoted (v.17) is not specifically about teaching doctrine, but about shepherding. (NWT links it to Acts 20:28) This can include doctrine, too, of course.  We should appreciate that a body of elders who takes on the responsibility of multiple congregations might be in a position to see dangerous trends and may be able to provide counsel and prepare others for strengthening their faith and resolve. Even the ability to report on what is going on in other countries among the brotherhood is often an encouragement, especially if they may be facing hardships that we have not yet faced. And such elders who take on a wider responsibility of multiple congregations would be in a position to learn about programs of charity due to emergencies (famine, flood, earthquake, war, persecution, disaster, economic hardships, pestilence, etc). 
 
Yes, this is much closer to what I was saying. The main point is to have respect for the good examples of elders in all parts of the congregation, both local and worldwide. We don't do this based on our understanding of Matthew 24:45 because Jesus made it very clear what that parable was about. But with or without any specific interpretation of Matthew 24:45, this has no effect on our wish to show respect for good examples, and showing the proper respect for their counsel and admonition. This is why the Christian congregations are instructed to appoint elders in the first place. We already have portions of the scriptures dedicated to the qualifications for elders. We already have portions of scripture showing us why we show them respect, and even give them a little more "benefit of the doubt" if an accusation is brought against them.   
We also wish to show the best kind of respect for the teaching they share with us, and the ultimate way to show respect for it is to be "noble-minded." This means to take it seriously enough to question it, test it, discuss it, and see if it's really so. When and if we see that it is so we should be happy to share it, too. This is what will surely happen most of the time. Yet, if our serious study and testing of any particular teaching indicates that it might not be so, especially if it seems to contradict scripture, then we should be just as willing to imitate the lead of this body of elders in expressing our view about that, too. We are not talking about "counsel" here, which is something we should always submit to humbly. Bible teaching is something we are asked to prove to ourselves. We are asked to let our reasonableness be known. We are asked to let our reasons be known. (1 Pet 3:15) Anything related to teaching and doctrine that we learn from humans, such as a body of elders, we need to make sure about, and take it very seriously, and never just accept it because our congregation's body of elders believes it.
(Galatians 1:8-10) 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. 10 Is it, in fact, men I am now trying to persuade or God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I would not be Christ’s slave. . .
 
Imagine how much faster we would have been blessed and progressed past the 1925 fiasco if Bible Students had truly believed that it was always important to question everything. Imagine how much less embarrassing the 1975 fiasco would have been if more persons spoke up and quoted Matthew 24:36 as the reason to question it. Imagine how much more loving it would have been to help prepare our fellow brothers and sisters, and encourage them to meet any and all of the possibilities that might lie ahead of us, instead of focusing on a narrower set of beliefs held at the time by a body of elders, who repeatedly claimed, for example, that this old system would be over by the end of the previous century.
*** it-2 p. 278 Love ***
However, love is not gullible, for it follows the counsel of God’s Word to “test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God,” and it tests everything by the measuring rule of the Bible. (1Jo 4:1; Ac 17:11, 12)
 

Your last line quoted here appears to be a reference to whether or not you think I'm saying that the Governing Body is a principal aspect of an arrangement made by Jehovah to lead his people at a particular time. I think the other side of that same coin is made out to be that if they are not that, then they are therefore self-appointed, and are not therefore a divine provision.
In so many circumstances, the most dangerous thing a human can do is speak about someone's leaders. For most of us, we find our comfort zone when we understand our own fixed place in an ideological hierarchy, and humans have been known to squirm, fight, or even kill when that ideological comfort zone is disturbed or threatened.
So, yes, there may yet be a significant portion of this discussion that needs clarification.
If you are trying to understand my own position on this subject, then I appreciate the opportunity to explain. Unfortunately, we have so much invested in the Watchtower's current explanation of Matthew 24:45 that any different view might prove to be quite difficult to explain without taking a couple more steps back to get a fresh look at the parable. 
I believe I have already stated that bodies of elders should be found in every congregation and they should serve as leading examples, overseers, administrators, teachers, etc. It is therefore inevitable that groups of congregations who work together or share assemblies together will also find a need for different kinds of administrators and leaders, and in effect a body of elders might be found for various groupings of congregations. We have utilized circuit overseers, assembly servants, branch or zone overseers, etc., to form such bodies (or committees) of elders. An even more important leadership role will inevitably be needed over the global set of congregations, and this is, from another perspective, a single congregation, too. It will also have whatever type of body of elders is deemed useful, wise, and important for that particular need. As Fred Franz pointed out in a previously referenced speech, it seems that most major large religious denominations invariably end up with some type of "governing body" even if it's called by another name.
Are they self-appointed? Not really. Remember that we follow the Biblical instructions for qualifications of elders, and therefore elders are appointed by previously appointed elders, who were all apparently approved due to meeting scriptural qualifications. And the very fact that some will reach out for the office of overseer (or qualify as a spiritually mature older man) is a good thing. Some of these men will be better at teaching, some at speaking, some at evangelizing, some at comforting, some at managing, some at visiting the sick, some at looking after orphans and widows in their tribulation, some at judicial matters, some at helping married couples, etc., etc. These are "gifts in men" as we sometimes say. Jehovah has given everyone an opportunity to find areas of sacred service no matter what our personalities. So it would be very unfair to point to the members who have been selected as a committee or body of elders for the overall congregation, and say that they were self-appointed. We need to recognize that the entire orderly arrangement for any congregation is all part of an arrangement from Jehovah. And for our particular type of ministry as Jehovah's Witnesses, there is going to be a strong desire to see men in leadership positions who tend to best represent that ministry to the entire world. We would expect to see good, sincere, faithful examples who are well-spoken, have excellent reputations, understand the scriptures, and have decades of experience in full-time ministry. And this certainly shows up in the selected appointees to the Governing Body. And it is an important part of our preaching and teaching ministry that the Governing Body takes a lead in making choices about the Bible-based publications, Bibles, and various types of Bible-based instruction that the congregations appreciate.
But back to the interpretation of the parable. There is nothing in the parable that says that the faithful and discreet slave prepares spiritual food. There is a faithful and discreet slave that is put in charge of food operations in this household while a master is away. But this is a parable that Jesus says was to point out the different kind of attitude between a faithful slave and an unfaithful slave. It's actually more about the several ways that a slave might show himself to be UNfaithful. The basic idea is that it's easy to imagine how many ways a slave might show himself to be unfaithful if a master puts him in charge of the smooth operation of the household. So the important question is therefore, how will a slave prove himself to be faithful when the master is away and there are so many temptations to get away with things, especially if you don't know how long the master will be gone, and he seems to be delaying. Will food always be served on time? Will the slave let that little bit of power go to his head and start beating his fellow slaves? Will he open up all the wine for himself and start acting like a confirmed drunkard?
Just like the parable of the neighborly and un-neighborly men in the scripture about the good Samaritan, the money given to the innkeeper isn't spiritual money. The beating and the robbery that the victim received was not a spiritual robbery. It was not a spiritual inn or innkeeper. No, it was a practical example about what it means to "love your neighbor" and answer, "Who really is your neighbor?"
In the parable of the faithful and unfaithful slave, we have the same idea before us. A situation is described in practical terms so that we will all understand that we make judgments every day about how we will live and what decisions we will make to prove that we are really being the sort of person who is in expectation that the master will return at any time, no matter how long the delay. It's easy for us to imagine how likely we are to fail in our assigned duties. It was very poignant for a Jewish audience to hear a story about how a Samaritan showed a more neighborly attitude than the complacent Jewish "neighbor" who ignores fellow human suffering. But Jesus taught that Christianity means doing something about the sick, homeless, those lacking clothing, the hungry and the thirsty. And like the Jewish "neighbor" we too might think we are doing enough by preaching and teaching and therefore become complacent. It's easy to imagine the appointed slave falling into trouble perhaps more easily than the others, as he lets power go to his head, or abuses his authority.
Both situations, just as we would expect of Jesus' parables, are about:  (2 Peter 3:11)  what sort of people you ought to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion,
These parables are not about actually staying up all night to keep thieves from breaking into our houses, or actual robbers beating victims, or actual stewards getting drunk or beating up fellow servants. And they are not about spiritual thieves, or spiritual robbers, or spiritual drunkards. They are circumstances to make us think about what we would do in these particular situations, and how these apply to the kingdom.
The idea of food and a house with a master who has gone away is very appropriate, but there is nothing about a small group feeding "spiritual food" to a larger group in the Bible. This was not a question about who would lead. There is nothing in the Bible about any "sole channel" other than Jesus himself. Our food, like Jesus, should be doing the will of our Father. The most important part of the parable of the slave is not about the food but about our response to the circumstance, as indicated above. This is proven, too, by the way that Mark summarizes it in Mark 13:
(Mark 13:32-37) . . .. 33 Keep looking, keep awake, for you do not know when the appointed time is. 34 It is like a man traveling abroad who left his house and gave the authority to his slaves, to each one his work, and commanded the doorkeeper to keep on the watch. 35 Keep on the watch, therefore, for you do not know when the master of the house is coming, whether late in the day or at midnight or before dawn or early in the morning, 36 in order that when he comes suddenly, he does not find you sleeping. 37 But what I say to you, I say to all: Keep on the watch.” In Mark's account there was nothing particularly important about the fact that food was involved. Mark doesn't even mention food, but focuses on the doorkeeper, and the fact that each one of the slaves was authorized to do his work. It was about whether the slaves remained obedient in their assignments, and remained watchful, in expectation of their master's return.
 

As I'm sure you know, for many years the Watchtower already did make distinct "class" applications to groups that were supposedly represented by the Good Samaritan, the robbers, the road, the innkeeper, the money, the victim, and the road-crossers. There were specific class applications made to the parable of the Prodigal Son that were said to be prophetic and referred specifically to changes in the heavenly and earthly classes of Christians that had their start in the 1918/1919 period, and resulted in specific rewards and conditions in the 1931 to 1935 period. This was said to be specifically what Jesus had in mind prophetically when he gave the parable.
So, yes, there is a certain ridiculousness to drawing parallels between and among some of these types of interpretations. I'm sure that the ridiculousness of turning such parables into prophecies and identifying only a specific group (or groups) within the Good Samaritan parable was finally noticed by the writers of the Watchtower articles. This is why some of these "class" explanations that had lasted for many decades were finally exposed to be fruitless in the March 15, 2015 Watchtower.
Yet we still twist and strain logic to try to keep treating this particular parable of "the faithful and the unfaithful slave" as a prophecy. (This can easily be shown if you observe the logic and reasoning of the July 15, 2013 article you referenced previously.)
That article also says that "It is vital that we recognize the faithful slave." That same article indicates that "in the past" (the previous 130-plus years) we had not recognized that slave correctly.
Without getting into any of those reasons given in the July 15, 2013 article, I would only hope that we could recognize that we might be making an important mistake. If Jesus wanted all of us to apply this parable to ourselves, and we say that we want that parable to apply not to ourselves but only to seven members of a Governing Body, then isn't it quite possible that we have rejected an assignment by our Lord? Would we really want to reject an assignment of sacred service?
But, we might say that we don't want to accept this particular assignment. Surely, some men will step up and take the lead for us. That's what always happens with groups of people. Then we won't have to carry our own load. It's certainly a lot easier to be the one served than to be a steward who is also responsible for the operation of the household of faith. Besides, once we accept that these men are our leaders, doesn't it become an act of disloyalty and rebellion to go back and claim that we were all -- each one of us -- supposed to be faithful stewards? Each one of us would have to be responsible to pay attention to ourselves and our teaching. If we merely follow, we don't really have to think that much on our own. We can just do what they tell us. Who needs to prove to ourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God? Let someone else do the proving. Let someone else be noble-minded and do the searching. Surely it would be chaos and disunity if all of us were allowed to question things that a body of elders have agreed upon.
I know that many of us think, or prefer to think in the way described in that last paragraph. But I think it shows a lack of faith in Jehovah to question his Word just so we can make a non-biblical doctrine out of one verse of a parable, especially if that doctrine relies on a rejected type of interpretation, and conflicts with the context of that same parable and conflicts with the rest of the Christian scriptures.

What if Jesus told us an illustration about, let's say, a "Good Samaritan" and we said that this didn't apply to us because we know of a specific body of elders within our organization who already identify themselves as the fulfillment of the "Good Samaritan." If that specific body of elders actually becomes known for a ministry that is very much like the good Samaritan of the parable, and they manage such a ministry on a world-wide basis and encourage others to join them and help them, then I'd have to say that they really are fulfilling the role of the "Good Samaritan." 
There would be nothing wrong with such a ministry even if (or especially if) millions of people sincerely followed them, obediently followed the lead of their instructions, displaying a combination of such charity, motivated by love of God, and combined with their confident expressions of faith that indicated that their motivation was heartfelt. There would be nothing wrong with identifying that special body of elders as the "Good Samaritan" class or group or body.
But would it be right to say that only the persons of that group of elders should be identified as the "Good Samaritan" and that Jesus had assigned this particular group of elders to that position? Would it be right to say that Jesus had only this particular group of elders in mind in a prophetic sense and that the phrase "Good Samaritan" can only refer to persons appointed into this group during a specific time period?
This might sound ridiculous, but the two parables actually provide a much closer parallel than might appear at first glance:
With respect to the good Samaritan, Jesus was answering the question:
WHO REALLY IS MY NEIGHBOR?
(Luke 10:29) . . .“Who really is my neighbor?. . .
With respect to the parable of the faithful and the unfaithful slave Jesus was answering the question:
WHO REALLY IS THE FAITHFUL AND DISCREET SLAVE?
(Luke 12:42) . . .“Who really is the faithful steward,. . . (Matthew 24:45) . . .Who really is the faithful and discreet slave. . . For some reason the Watch Tower publications now say that one of these "Who really is..." questions applies to millions of us all around the world, and the other one applies to only about seven of us: only a specific body of elders in New York. 
As I said before, however, this is simply a matter of not yet noticing the contradiction between this explanation and other passages of Scripture. This does not mean there is anything wrong with the "faithful slave" or that the "faithful slave" has turned unfaithful, because the phrase was never intended to identify a small group of seven "New York" residents in the first place. It would really be no different than if the same group had called themselves "The True Neighbor class" or "The Faithful Steward body" or "The Good Samaritan group." It doesn't mean that they don't belong in the group, or that they might even take the lead in trying to represent the group in the most effective way. It does not mean that Jehovah won't bless their endeavors either. They are trying to do the right thing in the best way that they currently understand the scripture. In time however they will probably recognize the contradiction that this understanding produces against several other passages of scripture. This has happened with many other understandings. It's simply a matter of context and conformity with ALL the scriptures on the particular subject.
I'd say that the Watchtower has already come very close to dealing with one of the contradictions, and their conclusion apparently led them to the right answer, in spite of the contradiction. Therefore, this one contradiction was already noticed, but this was not enough yet to overturn the entire entrenched teaching. At least it digs around it a bit. The following Watchtower paragraph deals with the idea that this particular "faithful slave" will become entitled to a greater reward than the rest of the "domestics" whom they were serving. This is the obvious implication of Jesus' parable, yet those who formulated this latest interpretation also realize that it would be a mistake to interpret it in the same way that Jesus implied. It would produce too strong a contradiction with other passages:
*** w13 7/15 p. 25 par. 19 “Who Really Is the Faithful and Discreet Slave?” *** Does the faithful slave receive a greater reward in heaven than the rest of the anointed? No. A reward promised to a small group in one setting may ultimately be shared by others. For example, consider what Jesus said to his 11 faithful apostles the night before he died. (Read Luke 22:28-30.) Jesus promised that small group of men that a fine reward awaited them for their faithfulness. They would share his throne of kingly authority. But years later, he indicated that all of the 144,000 will sit on thrones and share his rulership. (Rev. 1:1; 3:21) Similarly, as stated at Matthew 24:47, he promised that a small group of men—the anointed brothers who make up the faithful slave—will be appointed over all his belongings. In reality, all of the 144,000 will share his vast heavenly authority.—Rev. 20:4, 6. So what we end up with is this: a small group of men prove faithful until Jesus returns and this particular slave therefore is rewarded with an appointment over ALL the master's belongings. If Jesus returned tomorrow, then these seven elders who make up the Governing Body would therefore be expected to receive a reward much greater than any reward promised to the domestics whom they were serving. The contradiction required an explanation. The explanation correctly shows that there is NO special reward that these 7 elders receive that is any different from 143,993 others who were also included in the domestics. The only explanation is that all of the 144,000 get the EXACT same reward, instead of what Jesus indicates. What the writers hadn't noticed is that the contradiction doesn't need to be rationalized away, because there is no contradiction if we change the premise by accepting the explanation of Matthew 24 that we find in 1 Peter and 2 Peter.
 

Fair enough, but to me, it's pretty simple. If the words of Jesus and Paul substantiate the viewpoint that Christians should avoid looking to any kind of Governing Body as a "sole channel" then we are jumping the gun by worrying about any particular response to any Governing Body that makes that claim. We first need to deal with whether the claim is proper. I have no doubt that the claim of Moses was proper. The Bible said it was. I also have no doubt that this particular claim of the Governing Body is improper. The Bible said it was.
To me, it's exactly as simple as having a group of very respected and authoritative elders in the congregation claiming that we should celebrate Christmas, for example. Not likely to happen, but for the purpose of this illustration, let's say that it will happen in 2018. If these are very respected elders who are pillars in the congregation and good examples and have offered a lot of excellent spiritual teaching in the past then perhaps many in the congregation will go along. But let's say that some others are still respectful, but don't go along with these elders. Let's say that those who don't go along are told that they are acting like Korah, Dathan and Abiram. In such a case, I think the first thing to concern ourselves with is whether the reference to Korah et al is appropriate. It's only appropriate if the respected, authoritative elders are really in a situation comparable to Moses.
To someone who believes that the elders are in a situation comparable to that of Moses in Numbers 16, then obviously the situation would appear similar, and nothing could likely be said that could easily convince them otherwise.
That's why I refer directly to the words of Jesus and Paul that address this exact kind of situation. It was Jesus and Paul who said that it was the spiritual responsibility of all of us to be servants of each other. Jesus spoke out directly against any kind of governing body that would think of itself as if they were in a similar situation to the seat of Moses. And Paul spoke out directly against a situation that had occurred due to problems emanating from the congregation where the Jerusalem council provided leadership, and went so far as to show how he did not treat the Jerusalem council as if they were a governing body for other congregations. 

There are other reasons, too, of course. But I thought I had already provided enough Biblical evidence to get the conversation started. Another perspective on this, of course, would be the fact that Moses was a "type" of Jesus himself. This is not one of the questionable type-antitype applications that were merely made up in order to create class distinctions among us. This was one that the Bible itself makes clear:
*** w65 6/15 p. 368 par. 6 The Great Potter Molds Human Vessels ***
In fact, Moses himself foretold that a prophet like him would appear: “A prophet from your own midst, from your brothers, like me, is what Jehovah your God will raise up for you—to him you people should listen.” (Deut. 18:15) That he foretold the coming of Jesus Christ, the apostle Peter shows at Acts 3:22, 23, where he quotes from this prophecy and applies it to Jesus Christ.
So, yes, Moses was a human who was to be treated as the "sole channel" appointed by Jehovah. But any others, then and now, who put themselves in the "seat of Moses" are not following the Christian model, where we have no leader but Christ.
(Matthew 23:1-10) . . .: 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the seat of Moses. . . . 8 But you, do not you be called Rabbi, for one is your Teacher, and all of you are brothers. . . .10 Neither be called leaders, for your Leader is one, the Christ.
The same argument could be said about the position of Aaron, whose was also questioned about being the sole channel, in effect:
(Hebrews 8:1-10) 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. . . . 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.
 

Please don't think that just because I believe the Governing Body has made a serious error of judgment as to doctrine that this is some disaster. They have already admitted to hundreds of errors over the years, and this would not be much different. They are elders of a congregation and therefore not above error and not above criticism. We should take to heart Paul's counsel to Timothy in 1 Timothy chapter 5. He knew that Timothy might be much younger, but should not let anyone look down upon his youth. He told Timothy that older men (elders) should be respected and not severely criticized, but also that they were not above criticism. Those elders who preside in a fine way are worthy of double honor, even "wages" (1 Tim 5:17,18). But he also said that accusations against elders would occur, and some would need to be reproved before all onlookers. Timothy was not to show prejudice or partiality:
5: 1 Do not severely criticize an older man. On the contrary, appeal to him as a father, to younger men as brothers. . . 17 Let the elders who preside in a fine way be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard in speaking and teaching. 18 For the scripture says, “. . .  “The worker is worthy of his wages.” 19 Do not accept an accusation against an older man except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 20 Reprove before all onlookers those who practice sin, as a warning to the rest. 21 I solemnly charge you before God and Christ Jesus and the chosen angels to observe these instructions without any prejudice or partiality.. . .  24 The sins of some men are publicly known, leading directly to judgment, but those of other men become evident later. 25 In the same way also, the fine works are publicly known and those that are otherwise cannot be kept hidden.
Paul made the same point about partiality in Galatians just before he mentioned that he had to reprove elders with respect to Peter, James, John and Barnabas, and the problems they had caused both in the Jerusalem congregation and which had spread as far as Antioch and Asia Minor.
(Galatians 2:6) 6 But regarding those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me, for God does not go by a man’s outward appearance—those highly regarded men imparted nothing new to me.
(Galatians 1:10-12) 10 Is it, in fact, men I am now trying to persuade or God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I would not be Christ’s slave. 11 For I want you to know, brothers, that the good news I declared to you is not of human origin; 12 for neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it was through a revelation by Jesus Christ.
The Word of God is our revelation by Jesus Christ. We are taught our doctrine from that source, and if anyone has tried to add any gospel to that, then they are "accursed" according to Galatians.
(Galatians 1:7-9) . . .. 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.
And then Paul went on to show how this applied not just to himself or an angel from heaven, but even to the so-called Jerusalem council, which today we might call "the Governing Body."
(Galatians 1:16-20) . . .I did not immediately consult with any human; 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before I was, but I went to Arabia, and then I returned to Damascus. 18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to visit Ceʹphas, and I stayed with him for 15 days. 19 But I did not see any of the other apostles, only James the brother of the Lord. 20 Now regarding the things I am writing you, I assure you before God that I am not lying.
(Galatians 2:1, 2) . . .Then after 14 years I again went up to Jerusalem with Barʹna·bas, also taking Titus along with me. 2 I went up as a result of a revelation, and I presented to them the good news that I am preaching among the nations. This was done privately, however, before the men who were highly regarded,. . .
(Galatians 2:6-13) 6 But regarding those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me, for God does not go by a man’s outward appearance—those highly regarded men imparted nothing new to me. 7 On the contrary, . . .  when they recognized the undeserved kindness that was given me, James and Ceʹphas and John, the ones who seemed to be pillars, gave Barʹna·bas and me the right hand of fellowship, . . . 11 However, when Ceʹphas came to Antioch, I resisted him face-to-face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12 For before certain men from James arrived, he used to eat with people of the nations; but when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcised class. 13 The rest of the Jews also joined him in putting on this pretense, so that even Barʹna·bas was led along with them in their pretense.
It seems now that it is almost too scandalous for some commentators to notice that that it was actually men from James, the "leader" of the Jerusalem council, who were the very "false brothers" sent to spy upon the "freedom" of the Antioch congregation. Paul goes to very great lengths here to show how he resisted the men from James and especially the effect they had on Peter and Barnabas and other Jews. He speaks of the "council of Jerusalem" as if it were something that he was right to almost ignore completely for 14 years. And then he comes as close as possible to speaking of the potential of these men as being something "accursed." He makes it clear that although they seemed to be pillars, and highly regarded, that Paul himself needed to steer clear of them for as long as he could until the ministry based on the revelation by Christ had taken enough of a foothold.
Does this mean he had no respect for them? Not at all. He just needed to avoid treating them as if they were some kind of governing body. He wanted to make sure that congregations outside of Jerusalem knew that they had no reason to treat them with any kind of partiality or doctrinal deference. He doesn't speak against the office of "apostleship" itself, but this was clearly a necessary transition toward the idea of basing our doctrine on the inspired writings themselves, especially at a time when the living apostles would soon disappear from the scene. 

I get it. But it was very possible to read what you had written about Korah and tie it, in principle, to the actions of the Governing Body in presenting themselves as "the sole channel." Reading your words very literally could give the impression that the Governing Body was like Korah in the sense that they were not satisfied with the idea that Jesus alone is the "sole channel." It was not clear where the "sadness" came from when you said: "Sadly, the real rub here is around the fact that the Governing Body has presented themselves as "the faithful and discreet slave", the sole channel for the dispensing of spiritual food in these last days."
I understand that you have not changed your previously expressed opinions about this, and that you are here clarifying that you believe the Governing Body is the "sole channel." Still, I think that we should admit that there are a lot of weaknesses in this position from a Biblical standpoint. One obvious weakness was that, for well nigh 100 years, this idea was never known to the persons who now claim that they were that "sole channel." All those years, this supposed "sole channel" didn't know who they were until just a few months ago, and had therefore been teaching incorrect doctrine about who the "faithful slave" was for these last "100 years."
As you said, it was a "principal aspect" of this shepherding arrangement, and yet the "sole channel" couldn't teach the correct doctrine about a supposed "principal aspect."
For me, Jesus is the sole channel, and the Governing Body is simply a body of elders making the types of decisions that elders should make over a congregation. In this case it's not a specific local congregation, but the collection of all congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses, i.e., the overall congregation. Paul could have stayed in a specific, local congregation and remained a part of its body of elders, but his ministry called for a different kind of "shepherding" over many congregations, and this often presented the need to make logistical arrangements for his own travels and the appointment of others to travel to these congregations. He often had to make corrections either in writing or in person that were sometimes doctrinal in nature, sometimes financial, and sometimes dealing with "personnel" and personality conflicts. Overall, his purpose toward the overall congregation was the same as elders who presided over local congregations: encouragement, practical application of Jehovah's principles, preaching the good news about Jesus and his heavenly kingdom, and taking the lead by setting a good example for others.
So, as I've said before, I see a lot of value in a body of elders who take on this type of leadership responsibility toward the congregation overall. Elders are appointed for both their personal qualifications and, of course, their spiritual qualifications. By their examples they are leading us, and we should be obedient to that example -- just the same as we look to elders as examples in the local congregation. But there is nothing in the Bible about the body of elders who serve the overall congregation determining doctrines and teachings for the other congregations. I know that people will quickly point to the council at Jerusalem found in Acts 15, but this could very nearly prove the opposite point, as Paul seems to point out in Galatians, and as Fred Franz pointed out in a talk he gave back in 1975. (Ironically, Franz was the most respected member of this "sole channel" at the time when he argued against our current view of the "Governing Body.")
I believe that the Bible clearly proves that this slave is made up of the entire body of Christians. Therefore in the Biblical sense of the "slave" I would agree with what you just said, although I prefer an adjustment to the last portion of what you said here, though. During the days of Paul and the Jerusalem council, the holy spirit had not yet produced what we now know as the completed Christian Greek Scriptures, or New Testament. I think that the very purpose of building on a foundation of apostles and prophets from the first century was to produce inspired writings that reveal to us the "spirit of Christ." The Bible (Jehovah's Word, and through it, "the spirit of Christ") is intervening and directing the congregation at all times, not merely when absolutely necessary. 
The many proofs that, in the last days, all Christians are supposed to be "the faithful slave" or "faithful steward" are found throughout the scriptures. Here's one that gets right to the point.
(1 Peter 4:7-11) 7 But the end of all things has drawn close. Be sound in mind, therefore, and be vigilant with a view to prayers. 8 Above all things, have intense love for one another, because love covers a multitude of sins. 9 Be hospitable to one another without grumbling. 10 In proportion as each one has received a gift, use it in ministering to one another as fine stewards of God’s undeserved kindness expressed in various ways. 11 If anyone speaks, [let him speak] as it were [the] sacred pronouncements of God; if anyone ministers, [let him minister] as dependent on the strength that God supplies. . .
A separate point in the above quote from 1 Peter is that all of us are responsible to serve "spiritual food" in the sense that all of us are to speak as if we are responsible for the sacred pronouncements of God. Never is there a hint that we are dependent on any group of men for these pronouncements.
(Galatians 6:2-6) 2 Go on carrying the burdens of one another, and in this way you will fulfill the law of the Christ. 3 For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he is deceiving himself. 4 But let each one examine his own actions, and then he will have cause for rejoicing in regard to himself alone, and not in comparison with the other person. 5 For each one will carry his own load. 6 Moreover, let anyone who is being taught the word share in all good things with the one who gives such teaching.
Therefore, anyone who gives teaching is merely sharing with all the others who give teaching. No one should believe that our (or their) particular teaching is something that another person should "bear." That would be the same as thinking that our teaching carries with it some "authority" when all authority was given to Christ. If any of us thinks that our authority, or the authority of our particular teaching should in any way "govern" another person, then we have done exactly what Jesus warned against when he gave a parable about a faithful slave who 'lords it over' his fellow slaves.
Therefore, I think that the parable of the faithful slave itself is another good place where we find evidence that there should never be any kind of "Governing Body" trying to identify itself as "the faithful and discreet slave." Any attempt to make such an identification is unfaithful and indiscreet. It's exactly that kind of presumptuousness that Jesus spoke of when he said:
(Matthew 23:6-12) . . . . 6 They like the most prominent place at evening meals and the front seats in the synagogues 7 and the greetings in the marketplaces and to be called Rabbi by men. 8 But you, do not you be called Rabbi, for one is your Teacher, and all of you are brothers. 9 Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One. 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.
The specific example that Jesus was using here were the Scribes and Pharisees, about whom Jesus said had done the following:
(Matthew 23:2) “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the seat of Moses."
The Jewish legal system was understood in Jesus' day to have a need for such persons in the "seat of Moses." But the Christian system was to be different. There would be no "seat of Moses" because all of us would be servants to one another. There would be no governing leader except one, the Christ. It was this Biblical rationale, of course, that led me to think that perhaps you really had realized where the "sadness" came from in your reference to Numbers 16, where Korah and others had wanted to put themselves in the seat of Moses, so that they could count themselves in that "sole channel."

Most Witnesses obviously want to live peaceful Christian lives and conduct ourselves in a way that pleases Jehovah God and Jesus Christ. None of us really want the job of being responsible to take a specific position on all doctrinal matters and setting priorities for organizational direction in our overall global ministry. But we can be thankful that among Christians, there will always be a few that will take the lead in those heavy responsibilities.
The very desire to take the lead in such matters seems like an assignment that only someone who is very brave or very foolhardy would take. It seems that, from a worldly perspective, only the most haughty among us would reach out for such an important job. Yet, we know some of these brothers very well from either personal acquaintance, or perhaps they were Circuit and District Overseers in our congregations. Perhaps we worked alongside some of them in a Branch Office. We get to know their personalities from presentations, speeches, and broadcasts. We see them interact with each other at some events.
All in all, the majority of them seem to be good, God-fearing, humble men who want to do what is right, the same as the rest of us. We don't get the idea that any of them "schemed" to get to this position. We know that the guidelines for elders apply to them just as they apply to congregation elders. And it's my opinion, but I see a certain stability and faithfulness to worthy goals among all of them. 
Now it's easy to say good things about these men, and that's my point. When these men were mostly chosen only from a certain similar mold, there was not a large "pool" for these "gifts in men" to be chosen from. In the past, most had been chosen from a limited bureaucratic background. At the point when there were 17 GB members alive at the same time, most (but not all) had the ability to give a good talk, but at least half of them were seriously lacking in Biblical expertise, and at least half of them had very little experience even in the door-to-door field ministry for the last 40 years of their lives. We should not have been surprised that certain kinds of flaws showed up among these men so that several were dismissed, and a lot of politics and scheming was known to go on among those who remained.
But the current group, especially after the death of Theodore Jaracz, have been chosen from a much wider pool of candidates. These men have made more progress in the last 20 years than in the previous 100 years. They are managing a much bigger, and smoother operation, with millions and millions more persons in their care. Doctrinal changes over the last 20 years have been steady and clearly beneficial overall. The quality of the publications and the website has improved greatly. It's reach is enormous. 
I've already stated my opinion that the GB are not the equivalent of the "faithful slave" from a Biblical standpoint. But that's not the point of discussion here. These men, the GB, who have taken the lead for doctrinal and prioritized the organizational and ministerial direction have taken on an important and necessary assignment. They admit that they aren't perfect. Of course, that statement is meaningless, because such a statement almost always is used with the intention of meaning "perfect, for all practical purposes." But they don't leave it at that. They admit that they have made serious errors in doctrine and leadership. they admit that the spiritual food they produce and distribute is not always perfect.
So, with that said, I think one way of looking at the overall picture is to see these men in the position of keeping order. They take the lead at the "highest" level, not because they think that you must think that all these doctrines are perfect. They do it because it keeps order and harmony. They do it by taking a stand on certain doctrinal matters and setting organizational priorities. Sure, they may do some of this by majority vote, but ultimately they make choices. This is part of remaining organized in any organization and not falling into chaos. Going off in many directions is inefficient. Even trying a certain direction that proves untenable has a certain value if it's caught early enough, and there is humility to change.
Taking a stand means that we will sometimes discover we took the wrong stand, but it also has an advantage in making our beliefs transparent. If a doctrinal stand is taken, our thinking is clearer on it, and contradictions show up more easily. It would be easy to be 100% accurate by taking a less dogmatic stand on many things. But this makes it harder to test whether we are thinking correctly and reasonably on some of our beliefs.
I think that it could be like those logic puzzles, like they do for LSAT tests, where you get 5 to 10 clues, and have to figure out, for example, where everyone lives and what they do, what they drink, and the color of their house:
Bill is a plumber who drinks whiskey and lives in the green house that is next to a corner house. John is not a carpenter, and he drinks soda and lives in either a red or blue house that is two houses from Sally's house. etc. etc. etc. Sometimes you get to a point where you just need to take a stand and say that John must be in a blue house, for example, even if you don't know for sure, so that you can properly test if it works. (Actually, Sudoku was probably a better example, come to think of it.)
So, we can have doctrinal claims that are still in the middle of such testing. We took a stand, and it clarifies our position so that it can be more clearly tested. It can work for both trivial and important matters like: whether Moses wrote all of the first five books of the Bible himself, or whether Galatians was written prior to 1 Corinthians, or whether the "other sheep" are Gentiles or "spiritual Gentiles."
If we (as an organization) take a stand, it should be faster to get to a point where we can take a consistent stand on all important matters of doctrine and teaching. This assumes that haughtiness and love of tradition don't get in the way of change. And that gets back to having the right kinds of personalities taking the lead.

You have made some good points. I won't try to respond to all of them, but I will try to give simple answers to some of the questions and points.
I believe that the Holy Spirit already led Christians into ALL truth during the first century. We are only trying to find a way to map the principles and activities and descriptions of the first-century congregations to our own century in an appropriate manner. Therefore, it all really boils down to trying to understand the Holy Scriptures. Of course we try to understand how best to apply the scriptures as the primary source of the Holy Spirit, but we also rely on experienced elders who have set a good example and who have years of studying and teaching experience. But again we are trusting these men to help us make decisions about how best to understand and apply the principles of scripture. We also rely on prayer for proper guidance, but prayer itself is still about guidance for how to best understand and apply the principles of scripture. It always circles back to how and whether we are understanding and applying the Bible correctly.
So Holy Spirit reveals these truths today through a proper understanding of the Bible. It's the same for all the doctrines. The most important doctrines are not difficult, but many doctrines (Bible teachings) are more ambiguous. Some have caused difficulties for many religious denominations through history.
One of the most important things is the way that the Bible is now read with more understanding of context. Up through the 1970's and well into the 1980's only a very few JWs were expected to be able to understand anything from a Bible passage that hadn't already been explained in a prior Watch Tower publication. (Due in large part to emphasis on types and antitypes, everywhere!) If a verse had never been commented upon, it could only be understood by someone at the Society. It was not generally expected that an average JW could read the Bible and get much out of a passage without a constant referral to publications. The majority of JWs had never discovered the joy of Bible reading on their own, because very few tried to understand context. Most of us were encouraged to read the Bible only to find and highlight doctrinal proof texts that often had almost nothing to do with the context. Bible reading, even up through the 66th (and 67th) Class of Gilead, for example, was so stilted that students I studied with felt they understood much less, rather than more, when reading straight through the Bible. About the same time, there was a backlash against comments that Bethelites were claiming to find a personal joy at a new type of Bible reading at Bethel where people were encouraged to read a few verses and then discuss what they thought it meant. This type of contextual reading and discovery of meaning through context seemed to be validated by the style of the Aid Book which often relied on context as evidence. The backlash within Bethel at the time was brutal, but as of a couple years ago, the biggest impediment to contextual understanding was removed. "Types and antitypes" had formed a set of about 300 teachings. Most JWs didn't know them all, but Gilead students were tested on them. Now these are gone and 'new things' are uncovered constantly for many JWs every time they read the Bible.
True, the apostles did not recognize any particular earthly structure or organization except for the manner in which appointments were made for the congregations based on letters to Timothy and Titus, for example. The power of men comes into play in the Watchtower's organization, that's true, but I don't accept that it is the "men" or the "organization" really deciding anyone's spiritual fate. Jehovah can override all mistakes made. Men are not the real judges.  Men are just trying to do what they believe the Bible tells them they should do.
There are plenty of excellent quotations in the publications that support the Bible's view on our need to pay attention to our own teaching and to make sure of all things we are taught. It is correct that we are all responsible. And if we lead someone to the door of a Kingdom Hall, we are responsible to let them know that they MUST sift through the WT teachings. If we think of ourselves as teachers and students choose not to associate with JWs, we should let them know that they are going to be responsible to sift through the teachings of any teachers they find. It's easy to go places where we can get our ears tickled, but Christianity is our own serious responsibility. Each must carry his own load. If my experience with JWs is that I have experienced serious mistakes and corrections and other changes, then it's my responsibility to tell others about my experience and let them know that such things are to be expected in any human organization. Again, remember, that we need to realize that the Watchtower organization is NOT Jehovah's organization. It is not Zion. The Watchtower does not teach that they are the same. One is human, and one is heavenly. The best we can hope for is that men who take the lead try to be led by the heavenly organization as best they can. We can hope that Jehovah blesses the humans who take the lead, along with those who accept their lead, and thus the entire endeavor will be blessed.
This might sound odd, and even sound "independent" and perhaps "apostate" to some other JWs, but if you listen closely to the history of the Watch Tower organization given to the 59th Gilead Class (in the same talk by F W Franz partly quoted in the video links you provided) you will see that this is actually the way that Franz himself understood the way we should view the Watch Tower. Per portions of that same speech, the only evidence we really have is evidence as to whether Jehovah has appeared to be blessing the endeavor.

I listened to the Introduction and the first two videos completely and I found that every statement made in these 3 videos was absolutely true. I haven't listened to the fourth one yet (Part 3), although I can make some assumptions from the title as to what it will say. 
Naturally, I reject the idea that Jehovah will destroy those who do not accept false doctrines and false prophetic explanations. I agree that it was arrogant of the Governing Body to indicate that this is what God will do if you don't accept doctrines that turn out to be false.
Then again, I still believe Jesus was correct when he said that there would be no literal walls or fences between the true wheat and the counterfeit wheat. Various church denominations would be a perfect analogy to fences in a field where true wheat grew in one section of a field and false wheat grew in other sections. Therefore, I don't believe that the denominational distinction that sets us apart is the actual criteria that makes us Christian and the rest of the world false. I believe that Christians are Christian because of what is in their heart.
I see the Watchtower organization as an entity to support a certain chosen type of ministry. Let's say that a church decides that it will focus on the ministry of healing the sick, and another one focuses on a ministry of providing shelter to the poor. That first church might build hospitals and may therefore form a governing body to direct the work of finding places where hospitals can be supported, where doctors, nurses, builders, etc, can be recruited, and how much they could afford to pay these doctors and other personnel. Something like that might happen with a church that wants to focus on providing shelter for the poor, or soup kitchens, or distribution of clothing, etc.
But the Watchtower organization is an entity that chose to focus on the ministry of teaching (and worldwide distribution of teachings). Perhaps in some sense the "ministry of teaching" can be expanded to include: (1 Corinthians 14:6) ". . .either with a revelation or with knowledge or with a prophecy or with a teaching?" By this, I mean, interpretation of existing prophecy, not the gift of prediction or newly revealed knowledge. Similarly, for purposes of setting priorities in the times we believe we are living, certain teachings would be seen as being more important than others, and more worthy of publication and distribution. Therefore, this ministry needs a governing body to set priorities, just like a supposedly less religious ministry that focuses on building houses for the poor, or bringing aid to persons suffering from natural or man-made disasters.
Those who would really focus in earnest on a teaching ministry would likely come up with a set of teachings that might seem unique to other denominations. This might attract persons of other denominations, and it might create resentment and rejection, too. Also, a governing body of such a ministerial undertaking might easily begin to see themselves in the role of the original Twelve Apostles, which can be very dangerous and create an unbalanced haughtiness. The more they focus on correct teaching, however, the more they should see these very dangers and learn to avoid them.
But I see this particular type of ministry as an important one. It is a true Christian service to other Christians and would-be Christians. I think that Jehovah's Witnesses in particular have found evidence for teachings that make it easier for people to understand God and Christ:
Trinity, for example, is a very confusing way to think of God, and makes God less approachable. I can see it as a service, therefore, to Christians and would-be Christians to present the view of God and Christ that the Witnesses have done. The same goes for Hellfire. This is (and should be) a confusing doctrine to Christians because it puts something in the mind of a loving God that makes no sense if we are created in God's image. A focus on an earthly hope attracts many who understand our unworthiness to stand before the person of God, including many who have a humble, down-to-earth attitude in our relationship with God. Neutrality and non-participation in divisive, nationalistic warfare is another point that JW's promote as a teaching that flies in the face of the usual teachings that churches succumb to during wartime. We may not have a full understanding yet of these particular doctrines and many others, yet it is still a ministerial service. (I doubt that every person who spoke up with a prophecy or to speak in a tongue or translate in the first century was always correct.) So as long as we are not too haughty about them, these teachings provide a service to other Christians -- a ministry. They can shake us out of long-standing traditions that might be blinding us to the ability to change our views when a better understanding is found.
I could go on and on about various doctrines that might start out as kind of a mess (dates and pyramids and false prophecies about 1925, and 'millions now living' etc). But they continue to uncover things out of the storehouse of the Bible, things both old and new.
In the past people (individual scholars) like Albert Barnes and Matthew Henry have accepted a teaching ministry. (Not to mention Gesenius, Strong, Westcott, Hort, Liddell, Thayer, etc.) JWs are very indebted to these scholars that came before them. In our case, we also try to make a teacher out of every person identifying themselves as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. This creates a unique ministry which becomes more valuable to Christians and would-be Christians as we continue to get better at it.
So just because we have a "Governing Body" it does not mean that the Bible said that the one true religion would need a Governing Body. It's just that the particular ministry we wish to focus on happens to work more effectively and efficiently with a Governing Body. If we take such a ministry seriously we will want to try to match the organizational structure of the first-century congregation, and most Witnesses think this is an attempt to match the idea of the apostles who focused on teaching while others focused on distribution. The Watchtower itself is just a kind of "business" arm to help "market" the publications more efficiently, and up until very recently the Governing Body was associated with the board of directors of this supportive business arm. More recently, near the turn of this century, this was seen as something that should be changed and several of the changes since then are massive improvements over the prior teachings. The attempt to  re-interpret the history and mis-represent that history is a common human failing, and we are going through this right now. But I do not associate with Jehovah's Witnesses because the current "Governing Body" claims to represent human or spiritual authority. (Galatians 1 & 2 show why this is condemned.) I associate with JWs because I've enjoyed my association, find people who are sincere about wanting to participate in a legitimate and important ministry,  and I get constant reminders to watch myself and my teaching.
(1 Timothy 4:16) 16 Pay constant attention to yourself and to your teaching. Persevere in these things, for by doing this you will save both yourself and those who listen to you
(Colossians 3:15, 16) 15 Also, let the peace of the Christ rule in your hearts, for you were called to that peace in one body. And show yourselves thankful. 16 Let the word of the Christ reside in you richly in all wisdom. Keep on teaching and encouraging one another with psalms, praises to God, spiritual songs sung with gratitude, . . .
(Galatians 6:2-6) 2 Go on carrying the burdens of one another, and in this way you will fulfill the law of the Christ. 3 For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he is deceiving himself. 4 But let each one examine his own actions, and then he will have cause for rejoicing in regard to himself alone, and not in comparison with the other person. 5 For each one will carry his own load. 6 Moreover, let anyone who is being taught the word share in all good things with the one who gives such teaching.
 

Witness,  I have no problem with this illustration. Notice that the citylike walls of Jehovah's organization are not literal because this is a spiritual entity they are "building up." They also share in a literal building work caring for the needs of Jehovah's expanding organization. The spiritual activities building up true Christian congregations, and that is the important part. And there is also physical evidence of this expansion that anyone can see. The growth is also evidenced by the need for physical buildings.
Personally, I agree that there is no absolute need for physical buildings. But joining in building and contributing to such things can still be an act of love. The most practical way to see this is to go back to a rather extreme example that I remember from when I first began pioneering, after quitting school at age 15 and 10/12ths.
When I was pioneering several of us spent one day a week in rural territory about 50 miles from the nearest Kingdom Hall where we tried to handle about 15 Bible studies that had been scheduled for Fridays, and about 10 persons already baptized in the area. (Bible studies averaged about 6 months to 1 year before students were either baptized or "given up" on during this time.) There was enough interest to start a new congregation because a couple of responsible brothers also lived only about 30 miles away were willing to travel there. We began to rent (almost free) a small storefront that had not been fully rebuilt after a fire and had a tarp for a roof. Also there was a toilet behind a curtain literally about 3 feet from the nearest chair where an audience member could sit. There was no sound system, and a long cord brought electricity to a couple of lamps from an adjacent building. The interested ones were happy to have someone travel in every weekend to give a talk and have the Watchtower study. There was one week when we had to bring the metal folding chairs outside the building after a big rain. This particular congregation grew rapidly and there were some very lovely people who appreciated the opportunity to meet with others of like faith.
Now, you might think that their "faith" was all wrong, or built on lies, and therefore you might not appreciate that I am speaking primarily of the joy of these meetings in encouraging one another and building one another up spiritually, not about whether all the doctrines were correct. And remember that these same people were studying because they believed the incorrectness about many of the doctrines of other available religions and would have been most uncomfortable attending any other places of worship. They felt a kinship and brotherhood among people of like faith. During this time, several of our teachings that were emphasized in 1973 through 1976 were admittedly wrong, and I think now that a couple other items of emphasis were also wrong even though I didn't know it at the time. But I can never deny that there was a lot of mutual support of one another, a lot of material sacrifice, and, of course, they soon found a better place to rent, because they wanted to make it more comfortable for all the others, too, not just themselves. Those with more means were happy to provide a more permanent place, with volunteers to paint, build, put down a carpet, dig a septic tank, contribute materials (chairs, an old piano, etc).
Christians in the first century met in houses, and in synagogues, and in available rooms, but soon built their own places of worship, too. This was a natural outgrowth of the growth of spiritual interests; it did not mean they had lost track of spiritual things. Yet it is also possible to put too much emphasis on such things, and I appreciate your comments as they provide a reminder of the more important things.
 

As far as I am concerned we are responsible to make such things known in the congregation, just as much as we are responsible for preaching the good news. As far as I am concerned, this is the real way in which we preach the good news: not by teaching doctrines, but by supporting one another in a way that is as loving as possible. The real way that the true religion is known is not by doctrine but by how we show love to one another.
(John 13:34, 35) 34 I am giving you a new commandment, that you love one another; just as I have loved you, you also love one another. 35 By this all will know that you are my disciples—if you have love among yourselves.” Various situations of the type you area speaking of will happen almost continuously in most congregations, but, in my experience, they are usually taken care of. Whose responsibility is it to make something as important as this known in the congregation? You admit that surely her family would have received what was needed if the word had been made known. That's the point, isn't it? We have the desire to do the right thing, and when we pitch in together, the right thing gets done. But each person plays a part in such service. Many will be willing to give, but not everyone has the skills to lead and organize and prioritize such giving. Some persons are better at "seeing" the needs, some are better at providing helpful services, some are better with the ability to direct.
Note what Paul says of the ideal congregation:
(1 Corinthians 12:14-13:1) 14 For, indeed, the body is made up not of one member but of many. 15 If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I am no part of the body,” that does not make it no part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I am no part of the body,” that does not make it no part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If it were all hearing, where would the sense of smell be? 18 But now God has arranged each of the body members just as he pleased. 19 If they were all the same member, where would the body be? 20 But now they are many members, yet one body. 21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I do not need you,” or again, the head cannot say to the feet, “I do not need you.” 22 On the contrary, the members of the body that seem to be weaker are necessary, 23 and the parts of the body that we think to be less honorable we surround with greater honor, so our unseemly parts are treated with greater modesty, 24 whereas our attractive parts do not need anything. Nevertheless, God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that had a lack, 25 so that there should be no division in the body, but its members should have mutual concern for one another. 26 If one member suffers, all the other members suffer with it; or if a member is glorified, all the other members rejoice with it. 27 Now you are Christ’s body, and each of you individually is a member. 28 And God has assigned the respective ones in the congregation: first, apostles; second, prophets; third, teachers; then powerful works; then gifts of healings; helpful services; abilities to direct; different tongues. 29 Not all are apostles, are they? Not all are prophets, are they? Not all are teachers, are they? Not all perform powerful works, do they? 30 Not all have gifts of healings, do they? Not all speak in tongues, do they? Not all are interpreters, are they? 31 But keep striving for the greater gifts. And yet I will show you a surpassing way. 13 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels but do not have love, I have become a clanging gong or a clashing cymbal.

The ideal congregation has thus been defined. Yet, we no longer see apostles and prophets, and powerful works, and gifts of healing, and tongues in the way that the first century congregation saw them. Even the "teaching" is essentially complete with the completion of the spirit-directed Christian Greek Scriptures. This means that the most necessary part of the current ideal congregation is that "its members should have mutual concern for one another." (v.25) The ideal congregation is foremost, therefore, an outlet for giving us opportunities to show our love through "helpful services" (v.28) and "abilities to direct" those helpful, loving services.
Jesus also seems to have anticipated that the primary concern of those of faith as judgment day approached would no longer be a big concern with prophesying and powerful works, but with practical love through helpful services.
(Matthew 7:20-23) 20 Really, then, by their fruits you will recognize those men. 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!’
(Matthew 25:34-40) 34 “Then the King will say to those on his right: ‘Come, you who have been blessed by my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the founding of the world. 35 For I became hungry and you gave me something to eat; I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger and you received me hospitably; 36 naked and you clothed me. I fell sick and you looked after me. I was in prison and you visited me.’ . . . . 40 In reply the King will say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’
This was always the primary focus of real Christianity. If we see that our congregation is not living up to the ideals of the kingdom in this way, then we should do what we can to make sure that these opportunities are taken advantage of. This is whether we are in a leadership position or not.
I may not have the same outlook as you, because my family has been the recipient of such kindness back in 1964 and 1965 when my father gave up a lot to move us from a comfortable place in California to a poor area of the Ozarks where there were very few in the congregation who cared that much to learn about the details of the new "Babylon" book at that time. But they could show love to strangers. They helped us find a place to stay, a small farm on 7 acres to rent, a place to work on the broken-down car, and to nearly live off the land where we raised a small number of cows and calves, a lot of chickens, and hand-tilled nearly an acre for corn, beans, peas, tomatoes, peppers, potatoes, etc. We canned food, traded for other food. Traded eggs and milk for other necessities. Even though my father was an electrical engineer his first full-time job at the university paid only a four hundred a month [edited: $388/mo] for a family of 5.
My father's job grew 'slowly but surely' so that he could soon hire brothers to work for him at the university, which helped support others in turn. But we knew each other well in the congregation, and we knew the new ones coming in. (In just over a decade the one small congregation became 4 and by the 1990's was about 8 congregations.)
Today, I'll agree that many in the congregation don't know all the others as well. Some who have financial hardships don't want the embarrassment of admitting their troubles. They might pray and cry over the situation, but the solution is already built into the congregational arrangement.
What happens at Warwick, Patterson, Wallkill, Brooklyn, London, etc, is a different story, and I'll admit that it can sometimes seem to become too much of a priority. And yes, it can even become an idol. Humans have a tendency to idolize those who take the lead at the highest leadership positions, too. To avoid such mistakes, this is why we also have a teaching ministry, to keep ourselves aligned with the scriptural principles that should guide us. Correct teaching also helps us continue to give credit, not to ourselves, or to an organization, or its human leaders, but only to Jehovah and Jesus and the right spirit that should motivate us all. 
 

@Diakonos
I visited the Warwick property in the early summer, and I visited (and stayed at) the Patterson facilities two years ago. Warwick was still in a kind of torn up mess, and it was rainy/muddy, so it was hard to call it luxury at the time. Patterson, however, is gorgeous! I love the property, and I think it leaves a pretty good impression in the surrounding neighborhood. It both blends with and improves on the landscape. 
If all of it had been for the purpose of building up new buildings to live and work in "luxury" this might have been more questionable, but I think the point was to make a beautiful and comfortable environment for the working brothers and sisters, and also visitors and those who stay for training or temporary assignments. I believe that the basic idea is to create something that is practical but also gives "homage" to the goals of the earthly hope. It was rather incongruous to run a worldwide religious organization from an upscale urban neighborhood when that organization emphasizes the idealized pastoral setting as an eternal goal. A setting that emphasizes the beauties of Jehovah's earthly creation is more appropriate than factories in the shadow of the Manhattan skyline. (Although I think that can be beautiful in its own way, too, and I loved my 10th floor corner apartment in the Towers Hotel.)
So I have no complaint about the appearance of "luxury," as long as the costs were kept down as low as possible by volunteer labor and volunteer donations. Quality workmanship, quality design, and constant maintenance and cleaning sometimes gives the appearance of luxury when that isn't the real goal. Also, a lot of the cost and expenditures of these new buildings was based on the anticipated sell-off of prime Brooklyn real estate, and could have been, in effect, zero cost.
I can defend it in another way, too, where I see the Organization as a practical business that operates efficiently in the world through its ability to gain economies of scale in purchasing power, and gaining respectability from governments as a legal and business entity through its size and appearance and "clout." In the world, this kind of respect is gained through sheer size, expenditures, purchasing arrangements, lawyers, property, etc.
(Luke 16:8,9) And his master commended the steward, though unrighteous, because he acted with practical wisdom; for the sons of this system of things are wiser in a practical way toward their own generation than the sons of the light are . . . 9 “Also, I say to you: Make friends for yourselves by means of the unrighteous riches. . . ."
So, it's not that I think any of this building activity is "necessary" in a Christian sense (the stones could cry out) but it is sometimes "wiser in a practical way" to use unrighteous riches in ways that will not always get all of these funds out to the poor.
(Matthew 26:8-11) 8 On seeing this, the disciples became indignant and said: “Why this waste? 9 For this could have been sold for a great deal of money and given to the poor.” 10 Aware of this, Jesus said to them: “Why do you try to make trouble for the woman? She did a fine deed toward me. 11 For you always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me.
I'm not one of those people who confuses the Governing Body with Jesus himself, although I've met and conversed with some who apparently do make that mistake, and you might even meet one or two of them here on this forum. The reason I bring up the verse just quoted isn't to tie it to Matthew 25:40 (‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’) It's to point out that "voluntary" giving can go to whatever projects we "volunteer" to give it to. If we volunteer it to a building project during the time that we are aware of what's going on in Warwick, we know that's where it's going. Not even Ananias would have been judged for how he contributed his money, or how much he held back from contributing:
(Acts 5:4) 4 As long as it remained with you, did it not remain yours? And after it was sold, was it not in your control?. . .
Most who are giving at this time actually want to see it used for something "almost luxurious" or jewel-like in Warwick or at various other current Branch projects in the UK, etc.
Beyond these points just made however, I have also been disappointed that there have not been more opportunities for voluntary giving to specific areas where there is hardship that needs to be alleviated. There are places where Witnesses are undergoing extreme hardship, suffering, hunger, relocation, exile, etc., and I don't like to learn how bad it was a year later in the Yearbook. There are many things we can do locally with our funds and resources, or when we travel to "third world" lands and donate directly, but we also know that an international religious society could organize this more efficiently and find ways to directly provide what's needed to the right people. (The WTS often does this, too.) If too much is given for one relief project, then what's remaining can go to the next, and less is wasted. Rather than 1,000 haphazard donations which can be hit and miss and overlapping, each relief effort can be turned into a project that efficiently cares for everyone in need (and especially those related to us in the faith, so I don't think there is anything wrong with a focus on just JWs first, if the money came from JW donations).
(Galatians 6:10) 10 So, then, as long as we have the opportunity, let us work what is good toward all, but especially toward those related to us in the faith.
I agree with the sentiment that the primary "good works" that most early Christians were involved in referred to charitable works not spriitual work. It was fine and appropriate for a specific small group to be more concerned with "doctrine" than the work of "waiting on tables."
(Acts 6:2-4) 2 So the Twelve called the multitude of the disciples together and said: “It is not right for us to leave the word of God to distribute food to tables. 3 So, brothers, select for yourselves seven reputable men from among you, full of spirit and wisdom, that we may appoint them over this necessary matter; 4 but we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.”
The work of the ministerial servants here was the physical distribution of charity, and therefore the reason we do not forsake meetings is so that we can all know where to participate in the needed "good works" of charity.
(Hebrews 10:24, 25) 24 And let us consider one another so as to incite to love and fine works, 25 not forsaking our meeting together, as some have the custom, but encouraging one another, and all the more so as you see the day drawing near.
Those taking the lead in the congregational context, the ones we "obey," are the ones who help us to prioritize and coordinate charitable relief efforts helping us to make the most of our "gifts" and our "ministry." We do better when we work together and encourage one another in this way. Our spirituality, our very religion, should be defined by love and fine works. Those "fine works" include ministering to the sick, the hungry, those who lack sufficient clothing. Naturally, not all the ministries are about charitable relief, but these are the most important ones for most of us:
(James 1:27) The form of worship that is clean and undefiled from the standpoint of our God and Father is this: to look after orphans and widows in their tribulation, and to keep oneself without spot from the world.
 

A relatively young elder gave a funeral talk for the "unbelieving" son of an elderly sister. It was very well attended and I was glad that I witnessed for the first time a talk being given about a person, what he did for other persons, what he did for the community at large, how he treated his mother, etc, etc.  And he got in many scriptures too.   It was different from the usual talk which is somewhat disassociated from the person, and dwelling only on the hope for the future and the resurrection.
Love it that people are willing to remember the person who died.  Most people come because of the person.  And there are so many things we don't know about people, peculiarities and good qualities. That is why it is emotionally fulfilling to go there and be different, and it leads to some kind of closure for the family and all who loved the person.
So, Tom, you saw what you did for the policeman relative.  That is needed, too.

I served 20 years in a city congregation that was two thirds black. There were several sisters with unbelieving mates, and some of those mates had issues. One would spend weeks at home where life would be 24/7 bliss. Then he would disappear into the streets for more weeks. Nobody knew if he would return or not. When he did, his wife always took him back.

His wife asked me to give his funeral talk. Though most avoided assignments like this, I relished them for the challenge of offering comfort amidst horrendous circumstances. I mean, when a guy gets knifed to death on a strange doorstep while seeking drugs, how do you put a smilely face on that?

“Jimmy had some hang-ups,” I said, “and it is likely those hang-ups had something to do with his death,” I told mourners at the Metropolitan Funeral Home. “We all know it. We might as well say it. Only then can we begin to offer comfort. Like all of us, Jimmy was a combination of strengths and weaknesses. You never know for sure which will win out and sometimes you say ‘there but for the grace of God go I.’

Look, this system is rough and it destroys people. When that happens, you don’t go moralizing over it. These were Bible type people, most of them not ours, so I read a lot of scriptures. But I also went heavy on his good traits, for he did have some. Few in the audience knew that he had graduated at SUNY Brockport and that he was a skilled pianist. I told of the happy times he would play piano at home.

I didn’t know how to conduct myself at the Metropolitan Funeral home. It was not my culture. I gathered that much was expected from the preacher (me) who conducted the funeral. I told the funeral director that I didn’t want to do it, for it would be phony. I would give my talk, sit down, and they could take over and I would do whatever they said. He told me that after his remarks I should lead everybody out the front door.

After his remarks, I led everyone out the front door. When I was almost there, I turned around to find they were way behind me all moving like snails. Of course they were way behind me all moving like snails – they had a casket to carry. I hadn’t thought of that. I doubled back and led them out at a snail’s pace, and felt a little uncomfortable doing so.

My most emotionally rewarding moment? When a Rochester police officer, approached me with tears in his eyes to thank me for speaking well of his brother. Emotional reward is all that counts. Though I have given many funeral talks, I have never charged a dime, as is the way with Jehovah’s Witnesses. I relate the event not to draw attention to myself. It was emotionally fulfilling giving the talk. It is emotionally fulfilling again telling of it.