JW Insider

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.
 

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.
 

This is why there is so much false information and speculation around because journalists may no longer investigate and publish the truth any more. They are controlled by newspapers who have an agenda. Now the UN and many governments are becoming protectionist to "perceived treats".   Journalists are supposed to uncover the truth an keep governments honest.... (not that I agree with what Wiki leaks has done in the past.)
We are entering a type of fascistic era where information is controlled tightly - setting the scene for governments to do what they like.  It is an ideal climate for governments to turn against religion and spread whatever information they like about a religion. Russia at moment doing this - demonizing Jehovah's people as extremist
 

Why?
 "The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. Therefore, it can err in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction." - Par. 12, https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-study-february-2017/who-is-leading-gods-people-today/
Different thread, I guess.
 
These are merely assertions. On what scriptural or archaeological evidence were these assertions based?
The writer(s) of Kings and Isaiah didn't refute it either - and he/they could have done. Perhaps the claims were true. And we have the seals that are suggestive of an alliance.
Well, if Hezekiah was keeping pro-Assyrian king Padi locked up in a Jerusalem prison, then Hezekiah must have been "in coalition with other kingdoms in revolt"! Why was Assyria punishing Judah if Hezekiah had been meekly submitting to the Assyrian yoke all that time? 

Let's not overlook the fact that the timeless lesson on the result of faithful stewardship bound up in these verses at Matt 24:45-47 holds up regardless of the specific application to the Governing Body's role in modern times as part of the sign of the last days. It would be a highly myopic application here that ignored the necessity for ALL Christians to faifhfully discharge their responsibilities as stewards of Jehovah's undeserved kindness (compare 1Cor 9:17; 1Pet. 4:10). On the other hand, I see no reason to doubt that the oversight of spiritual shepherding that we currently see in the congregation has been assigned to the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses (regardless of membership number or place of domicile), in fulfillment of Jesus words at Matt 24:45. The outcome of faithfully discharging that responsibility is described at vs 46-47.

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."

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. 

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.

Not at all. In fact, the Governing Body must identify themselves as the "faithful and discreet slave." They would be wrong not to identify themselves as such. 

Thank you for putting my thoughts into words

I sometimes watch translations of the Friday services in Iran and they shout death to America every week.  They only preach politics and hate for the "immoral'  west in their Mosques.  They are hoping to bring about the next caliphate which they believe will come in the "time of the end".  They follow the Shiite brand of Islam and hate the Sunnis.
Erdogan in Turkey is removing the separation of state and religion which was brought in by Atatürk after the fall of the Turkish empire WW1. Erdogan sees himself as the next Sunni caliph and is trying to expand his territory (hence him going into Syria).  He is now  forcing all children to have Islamic classes in school and his country has become a place where all opposition is persecuted and tortured.  They are reverting back to tight control of women and Erdogan was caught giving support to the Islamic State. 
It seems to me that the more modern Muslims were involved in the failed coo-de-tat effort last year and since then most magistrates have been dismissed and about 70,000 people were immediately incarcerated.  Many civil servants that seemed too modern, or had any  affiliation to the cleric in America, Gulen, lost their jobs.
I recently read that Erdogan also has spies in Germany (Germany has many Turks) who follow up on any person saying anything bad about him!   Dissidents are not safe when they leave Turkey and go to a different sovereign state like Germany. 
So Europe is building up for something BIG.... whatever it is... it is coming.  The propaganda (inspired expressions like frogs mentioned in Rev 16 14- 16) comes to mind.... and it leads to Armageddon.  It seems as though false information and propaganda is everywhere and it is making people angry at each other - polarizing people so vehemently that they may be prepared to take up weapons against each other.

I can tell already that the point I was making is going to be mostly lost. But it doesn't matter that much because my point really was unnecessarily negative, and now wasn't the right time to bring it up.
But thanks for catching on to the basic point. I'll use your comments as an excuse to go ahead and explain my reaction to the CNN article. There were about half-a-dozen points that crossed my mind.
This news story was not included to create a topic for a specific set of religious beliefs. It's in a general news section. In my response, therefore, I didn't mention the other verses specifically because I thought they could be viewed negatively, but because they might have just as well been seen as more appropriate, and sometimes even more important to the circumstances. There was obviously nothing wrong with the other verses I pointed out, and a good, appropriate sermon could have been made on those verses, too. Every part of the open Bible could have been used to bring comfort in the storm, or a reminder of Jehovah's might. The verse chosen was perhaps the easiest one to work with.  The story also reminded me of the joke that goes something like: "A man went and said 'I'll open the bible to a random verse and use it to guide my life. He opened it and it said "and Judas went and hung himself" he opened it again and it said "go ye and do likewise." ' " It reminds me that the exact same type of story gains traction when steel beams fall, and create the shape of a cross as they did in famous photos taken from the World Trade Center disaster. It also reminded me of the fact that sometimes there are deadly storms or airplane crashes, and many other man-made or natural disasters where many people die, and often one person, perhaps an infant, or photogenic child, will survive. The news often picks up on these stories and highlights the angle (through comments and interviews) that there must have been something special about that particular survivor, and God must have something in mind for them. Perhaps these stories work very positively for 99% of listeners, but another 1% are made to wonder if there is a certain hypocrisy in focusing on the "value" of the life of the survivor that, in effect, dismisses the "value" of those whose lives were horribly and violently ripped away. For some sincere believers, it even creates a false dichotomy about Satan being allowed to do a lot of bad, while God was able to intervene to do some good. It's a faith-strengthener for some, but a problem for others, because it's built on a false premise: Jesus apparently dealt with the problem that disasters were often surrounded by superstitious beliefs even when the disaster was actually random: (Luke 13:4) . . .Or those 18 on whom the tower in Si·loʹam fell, killing them—do you think that they had greater guilt than all other men who live in Jerusalem?
Superstitious beliefs affected the view of every form of human suffering: (John 9:1-3) . . .As he was passing along, he saw a man who had been blind from birth. 2 And his disciples asked him: “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, so that he was born blind?” 3 Jesus answered: “Neither this man sinned nor his parents, . . .
Superstition is commonly utilized to explain coincidence, and if the subject is positive and upbuilding, we accept it as true and spiritual instead of superstition. The problem is that if the same superstition were used to explain negative coincidences, then the same type of thinking would be seen as "magical" or even "demonic." The existence of a very positive coincidence without superstition is actually difficult for us because we want to make sense of the world and believe that Jehovah is directly involved in all the good things of our material life, and this might require that we blame Satan for all the bad things of our material life. There is a depth of wisdom in Ecclesiastes that surpasses superstition, even though it does not discount the idea that Jehovah is still in full control of the universe:
(Ecclesiastes 9:11, 12) . . .I returned to see under the sun that the swift do not have the race, nor the mighty ones the battle, nor do the wise also have the food, nor do the understanding ones also have the riches, nor do even those having knowledge have the favor; because time and unforeseen occurrence befall them all. 12 For man also does not know his time. Just like fishes that are being taken in an evil net, and like birds that are being taken in a trap, so the sons of men themselves are being ensnared at a calamitous time, when it falls upon them suddenly.
Many religions with holy or sacred writings often have members who treat the writings with a kind of superstitious "bibliolatry" where the sacred books like the Quran or Bible, for example, are treated like a kind of Ouija board. The person closes their eyes and opens the book to some random point, lets their finger drop to a verse, then they open their eyes and try to make sense of the verse, usually out of context. It's the basis for the joke in point #2, above. This doesn't mean that it will lead to anything bad (as in the joke above), but it might also mean that we are depending on a kind of magical rather than rational thought process, which is related to idolatry. (Romans 12:1, 2) . . .present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, a sacred service with your power of reason. 2 And stop being molded by this system of things, but be transformed by making your mind over, so that you may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
P.S.
*** w81 1/1 p. 22 par. 19 “Engaging in the Holy Work of the Good News” ***
“I asked the householder what motivated her to study the Bible with Jehovah’s Witnesses. She said that often she would open the Bible at random, point her finger at a verse and read it. But she seldom could understand what she read.
“One day she was very depressed over serious family problems. Again she opened her Bible and picked out a verse. She could not understand it, and in her depression and disappointment began to cry. She prayed to God to send her someone to help her understand his Word. Just as she said that, the doorbell rang. Answering it she found a Witness, who began, ‘Would you like to understand the Bible?’ The householder pulled her inside and quickly a regular study was begun.”
 

So true. Of the nineteen 9/11 terrorists. 15 were from Saudi Arabia, and 2 from United Arab Emirates. Plus one from Lebanon and one from Egypt. Each of these countries were omitted from Trump's list.
Trump's list is basically just a copy of the list that Obama already had in place for travel restrictions. Of course, Trump included Iran just to please some of the Neo-cons in his party, and hoping for a reaction that will please his base. Turkey, Pakistan, and at least 3 of the 4 countries behind 9/11, are probably all slightly more practical choices than the ones he chose, but not politically or financially expedient.  
Of course, an even better solution has been there all along and would have been a much more humanitarian solution than the way the Administration messed up on the implementation of this one. (I think that messing up the implementation was partially done on purpose so that the "noise" surrounding the mess-up would provide a louder signal to Trump supporters that he followed through on a campaign promise.)
The better solution is to put the same amount of energy into getting disparate intelligence agencies to cooperate and share. This was discovered to be the primary problem of 9/11 itself, and the former prime minister of Belgium (through 2008) is now saying that it has been the same problem for Belgium, France, Germany, Turkey, UK, etc., regarding recent attacks there.
In fact this was the reason that the FBI was created in the first place in the USA in 1901, because of the "terrorist" attack on President McKinley by Czolgozc. It was immediately realized that sharing intelligence was paramount. Of course, this works well until intelligence agencies themselves begin feeling like self-important, all-important silos. Live and learn; learn and live.
 

This world has gone crazy with unpredictability and volatility the order of the day (as predicted in Bible prophecy).  Common sense has left the board room!
While there is a definite threat from political Islam (part of the harlot in Revelation 17) we also see an overreaction on the part of politicized Christendom (who voted Trump in) and also a component of the harlot (world empire of false religion).  Religion is bedfellows with politics and are forwarding their own agendas into legislation (riding the beast) and causing more division in the world.
What is NOT strange about this ban is the role once again that money and big business is playing in the list of countries chosen for the ban.  Saudi Arabia is the biggest exporter of Salafist ideas (extreme political islam to rule the world) and has funded most of the mosques in America and Europe through front organizations. They have also sent their trained imams to mosques throughout the world in the last 30 years with their billions of dollars gained from oil.
Most of the terrorists involved in the twin towers collapse came from Egypt and Saudi Arabia.   They are NOT on the list -  so this extreme, fear inspiring safety and security measures is not going to fulfill the purpose of the ban. The originators of Salafist islam is not on the list.....because big business with them is flourishing!
Satan is truly blinding the eyes of the world - keep separate and keep neutral as things are getting crazier every day! 

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.

The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, a newspaper just a few blocks away from the Brooklyn Bethel HQ ran an advertisement for the Wireless Phones, attached below.
It includes the words: "Those who can see into the future prophesy that this means as great a revolution in its effect on social and political life as has been brought about by motion pictures. . [offering]. . splendid music . . . the news of the day . . . sporting events . . . weather forecasts . . stock market reports, reports, speeches by leading men." (Brooklyn Daily Eagle, February 1, 1922. p. 11)
On April 23, 1922 the Eagle ran a small ad for someone wanting to trade a soccer ball for two of them.
 

Thanks, Anke. My first post over here. I like the idea of being able to highlight and use formatting. I didn't quite get it right, but I'll get better, I hope.

*** w09 12/15 p. 24 par. 20 The Messiah! God’s Means of Salvation ***
Since 1914 we have been living in the period of Christ’s pa·rou·siʹa, or presence. Although his presence as King of God’s Kingdom is invisible, it is obvious from the fulfillment of prophecies. (Rev. 6:2-8) *** end of quote ***
The most complete official explanation was in the February 15, 2008 Watchtower, where it is also presented as the equivalent of the "synteleia" (conclusion), the "generation" that sees the sign, the "last days," etc.. Portions of that article are re-quoted here. This was written before the single life-time "generation" was recently extended so that it could mean TWO overlapping lifetimes:
 
*** w08 2/15 pp. 21-25 Christ’s Presence—What Does It Mean to You? ***
 
NEARLY two thousand years ago, a question was raised by four of Jesus’ apostles in a private conversation with their Master on the Mount of Olives. They asked: “When will these things be, and what will be the sign of your presence and of the conclusion of the system of things?” (Matt. 24:3) In that question, the apostles used two very interesting expressions, “your presence” and “the conclusion of the system of things.” To what do those expressions refer?
2 To take the second expression first, consider the term “conclusion,” the translation of the Greek word syn·teʹlei·a. In the New World Translation, this word is consistently rendered “conclusion,” whereas a related Greek word, te’los, is translated “end.” The difference in the meaning of these two words can be illustrated by describing a talk given at the Kingdom Hall. The conclusion of the talk is the last section, in which the speaker spends a little time reminding the audience of what he has been discussing and then shows how that information applies to them. The end of the talk is when the speaker walks off the platform. In a similar way, Biblically speaking, the term “the conclusion of the system of things” refers to the period of time leading up to and including its end.
3 What of the “presence” that the apostles asked about? This is the translation of the Greek word pa·rou·siʹa. Christ’s pa·rou·siʹa, or presence, started with Jesus’ installation as King in heaven in 1914 and continues on to include the “great tribulation,” during which he comes to destroy the wicked. (Matt. 24:21) Many different things, including “the last days” of this wicked system of things, the gathering of the chosen ones, and their resurrection to heavenly life, occur during this presence of Jesus. (2 Tim. 3:1; 1 Cor. 15:23; 1 Thess. 4:15-17; 2 Thess. 2:1) It could be said that the period constituting “the conclusion of the system of things” (syn·teʹlei·a) corresponds to or runs parallel with the period called Christ’s presence (pa·rou·siʹa).
An Extended Period of Time
4 The fact that the word pa·rou·siʹa refers to an extended period of time harmonizes with what Jesus said with regard to his presence. (Read Matthew 24:37-39.) Notice that Jesus did not liken his presence to the relatively short period of time during which the Flood occurred in Noah’s day. Rather, he compared his presence to the much longer period of time that led up to the Flood. Included therein were Noah’s building of the ark and his preaching work, right up until the time that the Flood finally arrived. Those events occurred over many decades. In a similar way, Christ’s presence includes the events leading up to and including the great tribulation.—2 Thess. 1:6-9.
5 Other Bible prophecies make it evident that Christ’s presence refers to an extended period of time and not merely to his coming to destroy the wicked. The book of Revelation portrays Jesus as riding on a white horse and being given a crown. (Read Revelation 6:1-8.) After being crowned as King in 1914, Jesus is pictured as going “forth conquering and to complete his conquest.” The account then shows that he is followed by riders seated on different-colored horses. These prophetically represent war, food shortages, and pestilence, all of which have occurred over the extended period of time that is referred to as “the last days.” We are seeing the fulfillment of this prophecy in our lifetime.
...
9 Jesus went on to say that his disciples would see the sign just as clearly as they would see “lightning, by its flashing, [which] shines from one part under heaven to another part.” (Read Luke 17:24-29.) It is of interest to note that Matthew 24:23-27 directly links the same point with the sign of Christ’s presence.
The Generation Seeing the Sign
10 Previously, this journal has explained that in the first century, “this generation” mentioned at Matthew 24:34 meant . . . . the wicked “generation” of unbelievers who would see both the features that would characterize “the conclusion of the system of things” (syn·teʹlei·a) and the system’s end (teʹlos).
11 . . . Since Jesus did not use negative qualifiers when speaking to them about “this generation,” the apostles would no doubt have understood that they and their fellow disciples were to be part of the “generation” that would not pass away “until all these things [would] occur.”
. . .
13 . . . . So Jesus must have been referring to his disciples when he made the statement: “This generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur.”
14 Unlike unbelievers, Jesus’ disciples would not only see the sign but also understand its significance. They would “learn” from the features of that sign and “know” their true meaning. . . .
15 . . . As a class, these anointed ones make up the modern-day “generation” of contemporaries that will not pass away “until all these things occur.” . . .
“Keep on the Watch”
16 More is needed, though, than merely recognizing the sign. Jesus went on to say: “What I say to you I say to all, Keep on the watch.” (Mark 13:37) This is of utmost importance to all of us today whether of the anointed or of the great crowd. Nine decades have passed since Jesus was installed as King in heaven in 1914. As challenging as it may be, we must prove ourselves ready and keep on the watch. Understanding that Christ is present invisibly in Kingdom power helps us to do that. It also alerts us to the fact that soon he will come to destroy his enemies “at an hour that [we] do not think likely.”—Luke 12:40.
17 Our understanding of the meaning of Christ’s presence helps to intensify our feelings of urgency. We know that Jesus is already present and has been reigning invisibly as King in heaven since 1914. Soon he will come to destroy the wicked and bring about vast changes to this entire globe. . . .
[Footnotes]
The meaning of pa·rou·siʹa is seen from the contrast that is made between the “presence” and “absence” of the apostle Paul both at 2 Corinthians 10:10, 11 and at Philippians 2:12. For a detailed discussion, see Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 2, pages 676-9.
See The Watchtower, November 1, 1995, pages 11-15, 19, 30, 31.
The time period during which “this generation” lives seems to correspond to the period covered by the first vision in the book of Revelation. (Rev. 1:10–3:22) This feature of the Lord’s day extends from 1914 until the last of the faithful anointed ones dies and is resurrected.—See Revelation—Its Grand Climax At Hand! page 24, paragraph 4.
. . .
*** end of quote ***
 
In the above we can see the beginning of the reasoning that would finally require the changing of the definition of the generation that corresponded to the time of the parousia. The logic was that the time was urgent because 9 decades had passed. This was already pushing the limits of what Jesus might have meant by a reasonable generation length, or lifespan.
This "generation" change was one of the biggest shifts in doctrine about the parousia since the first time that it was first determined that the parousia must have started in 1914. Fortunately, we are able to find and compare the logic and reasoning that provided the basis for that particular shift in definition, too:
The latest 2015 Watchtower Library CD, gives the reference in the Scripture Index for Matthew 24:27
*** dx30-85 Matthew ***
24:27   w75 275; w74 750; ka 320; ad 1068, 1336; g63 6/22 27; g62 5/8 8; nh 258; w50 239; el 222; w49 217-218; w40 253; g34 3/14 381-382
Looking up that reference we find the following:
*** quoting Watch Tower's reference in g34, p.381-382 ***
"Prior to 1914 and years thereafter we thought that our Lord's return dated from 1874; and we took it for granted that the parousia or presence dated from that time. . . . For some time now many have believed that the things mentioned in the great prophecy of Matthew twenty-four have application since 1914 and not before. It necessarily follows, then, that the presence or parousia of Christ, the "nobleman", could not be before 1914." *** end of quote ***
 

 
 
 

This is a sad argument about the repercussions of the indefensible and despicable behaviour of people who call themselves Jehovah's Witnesses.
The monetary and reputational sanctions against all who are associated with the organisation is an additionally sad outcome for the extraordinary naivety displayed by all participants in this disgraceful scenario.
Hopefully, instructions like this:
and this:
"In all cases, the victim and her parents have the absolute right to report an allegation to the authorities.—Galatians 6:5."
and this: 
"If any congregation elder learns of a case of child abuse in which a child may still be at risk of significant harm two elders must contact the Legal Department at the branch office for legal advice on compliance. A report to the police or other appropriate authorities will be made immediately by the congregation elders if it is determined that a child is still at risk."
will be the start of a worldwide trend rather than an exception. (It is noteworthy that this policy is available to all members of the congregations in UK wishing to see it.).
The outcome of action as instructed will have serious impact, especially where allegations are involved, but (in my opinion) this will be just recompense for any engaging in questionable conduct of this nature, and similarly for those who even skate close to the boundaries of propriety in this regard.
Romans 13:3-4 can be be applied appropriately here.
This is a welcome move in the right direction despite the fact that methods to be applied for the appropriate determination of risk appear vague, and there is little on supporting victims. However, the UK branch of Jehovah's Witnesses appears to be less encumbered in this area than than the current UK Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse:   http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmhaff/636/636.pdf
The outcome of the Australian Royal Commission deliberations scheduled to start in March 2017 will be of great interest.
This debate continues.....sadly. 

It was also opened to the chapter that contains:
(Psalm 50:3, 4) . . .Our God will come and cannot remain silent. Before him is a consuming fire, And a great storm rages all around him.  4 He summons the heavens above and the earth, So as to judge his people: These other verses were also on the page:
(Psalm 45:5) 5 Your arrows are sharp, making peoples fall before you. . . (Psalm 48:7) . . .With an east wind you wreck the ships of Tarʹshish. (Psalm 49:10-14) . . .He sees that even wise people die; The stupid and the unreasoning perish together, And they must leave their wealth to others. 11 Their inner wish is that their houses will last forever, Their tents to generation after generation. They have named their estates after themselves. 12 But man, although honored, will not remain; He is no better than the beasts that perish. 13 This is the way of the stupid ones And of those who follow them, who take pleasure in their empty words. (Selah) 14 They are assigned like sheep to the Grave. Death will shepherd them; The upright will rule over them in the morning. Every trace of them will fade away; The Grave rather than a palace will be their home.  
Just sayin'
 

Wow. Beautiful. Loved it.

My story is similar.  I trained with the best opera singers and had a world-class voice singing Rossini, Mozart, Donizetti, Verdi, Puccini  Could sing the highest opera arias with ease and elegance (bel canto).
I left singing but  later had to work to support my children after the sudden death of my husband.  Worked as a reporter and then later became the head publicist for a national orchestra.  I saw the egotism and competition between artists and realized that I have the best future ever!   Nothing can compare with the promises of Jehovah!
Sometimes I still feel the draw of the lights but pioneering keeps me humble and now I am working in the Muslim refugee field in Sweden - improving my Arabic language skills.   I sometimes think that singing would bring me much needed 'easy money' but I dare not get tempted into the entertainment world because it would only be downhill from there!   It is really immoral and egotistical out there and easy money is not worth the spiritual price!
Jehovah always compensates spiritually for the worldly things we sacrifice - remember that!
I sang at a family wedding in Sicily four years ago at age of 60. It was captured on mobile (not a good mobile recording but I attached it for you).   I sang much higher when I was younger and had more power but I am proof that old people can still do interesting things!  Put your sound on high
 
 
 

Your browser does not support the HTML5 video tag.

You understood it perfectly. Most of the time, we don't catch such things because we rarely read the original source material. We don't usually give these items a second thought, or if we do, we at least give the benefit of the doubt to the writer.
This reminds me of several times when I witnessed the "editing" process at Bethel. Artists are sometimes given articles to read that have not gone completely through the editing and proofreading process, but I'm not talking about any of those times -- although they were often interesting, too. So often the focus was on things like: "Don't say it that way, it makes us look [some negative attribute]." For now I'll use an older example that fits the subject of the topic.
*** w68 5/15 p. 314 Happiness Results from Making the Most of One’s Talents ***
For years Anton had been in the insurance business. While such issues as buying war bonds caused strained relations with his business associates, it was the slogan “Millions Now Living Will Never Die,” which the Bible Students were then preaching, that caused him to sever his connections with the insurance business and enter the real estate field. There his natural abilities enabled him to become highly successful, buying, selling, building, financing and managing houses, hotels, apartment and office buildings.
On reading the highlighted line, you might never think that Anton [Koerber's] so-called "business associates" were fellow Bible Students. While it's true that "life insurance" became a surreal topic of discussion among many of the Bible Students, I'm told that the real argument was whether or not Rutherford had compromised the Watch Tower's neutrality by effectively encouraging the brothers to  purchase War Bonds (Liberty Bonds/Loans; Victory Bonds) during WWI.
The same issue of buying "US War Bonds" was the primary specific issue in Brother Klein's experience here:
*** w84 10/1 p. 22 ‘Jehovah Has Dealt Rewardingly With Me’ ***
Shortly after my baptism in 1918, my loyalty to fellow Bible Students was put to the test. World War I was raging, and even though the most prominent brothers had been unjustly imprisoned over the war issue, the need for Christian neutrality was not fully appreciated by those then taking the lead. A few who saw the issue clearly took offense and separated themselves from the Bible Students, calling themselves Standfasters. They warned me that if I stayed with the Bible Students I would lose out on being of the “little flock” of Jesus’ anointed followers. (Luke 12:32) Mother, though not yet dedicated, helped me to make the right decision. I could not see myself leaving those from whom I had learned so much, and I therefore decided to take my chances with my Bible Student brothers. It really was a test of loyalty.
The wording above definitely implies that Rutherford was out of the picture at the time, and not involved in the wording of the decision, but notes and documentation discovered at Bethel around the time of the article show that Rutherford was in on it.
I once told my experience of sitting next to Bert Schroeder as he started to rewrite an experience that an older brother was telling about life at Bethel in past decades on "Family Night" (mostly a Bethel talent show). It's not so relevant to the topic here.
From what I was told, that article about Anton Koerber, already mentioned above, was very controversial in several places, and I think, in re-reading it, that you can just about start to pick up on some of the "behind-the-scenes" issues, even if no one had mentioned it.  
*** w68 5/15 p. 315 Happiness Results from Making the Most of One’s Talents ***
He worked out contracts with radio stations and radio networks for broadcasting the Kingdom good news. He also proved of assistance in acquiring property in Brooklyn, New York, in South Lansing, New York, for the Kingdom Farm and Gilead School there, and in Toronto, Canada, for the Bethel home and factory there. . . . He had a share, back in 1925, in fighting for licenses for radio stations owned by the Watch Tower Society. For some twenty-five years and more he appeared before presidents, cabinet members and members of Congress to serve them with the many resolutions adopted by Jehovah’s witnesses at their various assemblies, always keeping in mind the fact that he was Jehovah’s representative on behalf of his brothers. . . . In 1935, he was sent to Germany to try to get the printing presses at the Watch Tower Society’s Magdeburg branch, which had been seized by Hitler, transferred to Russia, with the hope of opening a branch in Russia. . . . Shortly thereafter Anton returned to his real estate activity, after which he again became active as a full-time pioneer minister. Then in 1952 he was able to arrange his affairs so as to be able to travel as a circuit minister for the Watch Tower Society. . . . That Anton had the right view of secular work was apparent in a number of ways. One of these was the generosity he showed toward those who had served God’s kingdom full time over many years at such places as the Brooklyn Bethel. . . . His very positive personality at times caused misunderstandings with his brothers, resulting in his being on the sidelines, as it were, for a time. . . .
It might be hard to imagine how a "very positive personality" was responsible for misunderstandings that resulted in him being 'sidelined' as it were. My source, a respected brother in Writing, says that one of the reasons for the "controversy" behind this article was that Anton Koerber was actually a multi-millionaire whose generosity was very selective to specific brothers of his choosing. And he supposedly "bought" his assignments as a regional overseer and circuit overseer. When he didn't get his choices he threatened to take his "skills" to one of the other Bible Student sects. This could be false, of course. But the respected brother who told me was only someone who "seconded" the story as I had already been told from a less respected source.

You understood it perfectly. Most of the time, we don't catch such things because we rarely read the original source material. We don't usually give these items a second thought, or if we do, we at least give the benefit of the doubt to the writer.
This reminds me of several times when I witnessed the "editing" process at Bethel. Artists are sometimes given articles to read that have not gone completely through the editing and proofreading process, but I'm not talking about any of those times -- although they were often interesting, too. So often the focus was on things like: "Don't say it that way, it makes us look [some negative attribute]." For now I'll use an older example that fits the subject of the topic.
*** w68 5/15 p. 314 Happiness Results from Making the Most of One’s Talents ***
For years Anton had been in the insurance business. While such issues as buying war bonds caused strained relations with his business associates, it was the slogan “Millions Now Living Will Never Die,” which the Bible Students were then preaching, that caused him to sever his connections with the insurance business and enter the real estate field. There his natural abilities enabled him to become highly successful, buying, selling, building, financing and managing houses, hotels, apartment and office buildings.
On reading the highlighted line, you might never think that Anton [Koerber's] so-called "business associates" were fellow Bible Students. While it's true that "life insurance" became a surreal topic of discussion among many of the Bible Students, I'm told that the real argument was whether or not Rutherford had compromised the Watch Tower's neutrality by effectively encouraging the brothers to  purchase War Bonds (Liberty Bonds/Loans; Victory Bonds) during WWI.
The same issue of buying "US War Bonds" was the primary specific issue in Brother Klein's experience here:
*** w84 10/1 p. 22 ‘Jehovah Has Dealt Rewardingly With Me’ ***
Shortly after my baptism in 1918, my loyalty to fellow Bible Students was put to the test. World War I was raging, and even though the most prominent brothers had been unjustly imprisoned over the war issue, the need for Christian neutrality was not fully appreciated by those then taking the lead. A few who saw the issue clearly took offense and separated themselves from the Bible Students, calling themselves Standfasters. They warned me that if I stayed with the Bible Students I would lose out on being of the “little flock” of Jesus’ anointed followers. (Luke 12:32) Mother, though not yet dedicated, helped me to make the right decision. I could not see myself leaving those from whom I had learned so much, and I therefore decided to take my chances with my Bible Student brothers. It really was a test of loyalty.
The wording above definitely implies that Rutherford was out of the picture at the time, and not involved in the wording of the decision, but notes and documentation discovered at Bethel around the time of the article show that Rutherford was in on it.
I once told my experience of sitting next to Bert Schroeder as he started to rewrite an experience that an older brother was telling about life at Bethel in past decades on "Family Night" (mostly a Bethel talent show). It's not so relevant to the topic here.
From what I was told, that article about Anton Koerber, already mentioned above, was very controversial in several places, and I think, in re-reading it, that you can just about start to pick up on some of the "behind-the-scenes" issues, even if no one had mentioned it.  
*** w68 5/15 p. 315 Happiness Results from Making the Most of One’s Talents ***
He worked out contracts with radio stations and radio networks for broadcasting the Kingdom good news. He also proved of assistance in acquiring property in Brooklyn, New York, in South Lansing, New York, for the Kingdom Farm and Gilead School there, and in Toronto, Canada, for the Bethel home and factory there. . . . He had a share, back in 1925, in fighting for licenses for radio stations owned by the Watch Tower Society. For some twenty-five years and more he appeared before presidents, cabinet members and members of Congress to serve them with the many resolutions adopted by Jehovah’s witnesses at their various assemblies, always keeping in mind the fact that he was Jehovah’s representative on behalf of his brothers. . . . In 1935, he was sent to Germany to try to get the printing presses at the Watch Tower Society’s Magdeburg branch, which had been seized by Hitler, transferred to Russia, with the hope of opening a branch in Russia. . . . Shortly thereafter Anton returned to his real estate activity, after which he again became active as a full-time pioneer minister. Then in 1952 he was able to arrange his affairs so as to be able to travel as a circuit minister for the Watch Tower Society. . . . That Anton had the right view of secular work was apparent in a number of ways. One of these was the generosity he showed toward those who had served God’s kingdom full time over many years at such places as the Brooklyn Bethel. . . . His very positive personality at times caused misunderstandings with his brothers, resulting in his being on the sidelines, as it were, for a time. . . .
It might be hard to imagine how a "very positive personality" was responsible for misunderstandings that resulted in him being 'sidelined' as it were. My source, a respected brother in Writing, says that one of the reasons for the "controversy" behind this article was that Anton Koerber was actually a multi-millionaire whose generosity was very selective to specific brothers of his choosing. And he supposedly "bought" his assignments as a regional overseer and circuit overseer. When he didn't get his choices he threatened to take his "skills" to one of the other Bible Student sects. This could be false, of course. But the respected brother who told me was only someone who "seconded" the story as I had already been told from a less respected source.

For anyone else still interested at all in this question, or this subject, I should mention that there are easily about 100 pages of resources and material on the subject that has not been touched upon yet. I doubt that we will get through very much of it, but I thought that the explanation in The Centennial Review appeared quite accurate and speaks of similarities without attempting to prove causation. Naturally, it's long and I can't quote all much of it. These will be excerpts from 21 pages, with some portions highlighted. There are certain problems with his overview of WT and JW teachings, but at least shows a good awareness of most of the historical changes. The things he gets wrong includes the exact relationship he implies between Russell and Second Adventism, and I think this is worthy of more discussion under a separate topic. (I didn't mention it before, but I think that AllenSmith was right in a prior post where he credits B W Schulz with the most accurate history on that topic, although I wouldn't mind hearing where Allen differs from Schulz' view.)
THE BLACK MUSLIMS: AN AMERICAN MILLENNIALISTIC RESPONSE TO RACISM AND CULTURAL DERACINATION Author(s): Perry E. Gianakos Source: The Centennial Review, Vol. 23, No. 4 (FALL 1979), pp. 430-451
Black Muslims have ties to two earlier American black nationalist groups and share some of the ideas of each: the Marcus Garvey movement of the late 1920's and the Moorish-American Science Temple movement of Noble Drew Ali (the former Timothy Drew of North Carolina).5 The Islamic elements in the Black Muslim belief system probably derive originally from the Drew movement, but they were reenforced by W. D. Fard, the "Arab peddler" whom some Muslims believe to have been Allah. Appearing mysteriously in Detroit in 1930, Fard assumed leadership of the Moorish movement upon the death of its founder the year before, claiming at the time to be the "reincarnation of Noble Drew Ali." The movement soon split into factions, one of which led by Elijah Muhammad (the former Elijah Poole of Georgia) remained faithful to Prophet Fard (Master Wallace Fard Muhammad). It is this faction — "The Nation of Islam" — to which C. Eric Lincoln gave the name "The Black Muslims." According to E. U. Essien-Udom, how ever, in the early sixties Malcolm X and other Black Muslims denied any connection with the Moorish movement and asserted Fard's uniqueness (pp. 35-36). Fard's origin, though, remains a mystery, as does his disappearance in June, 1933.6
The influence of at least two other American religious movements — both millennial in character — can be detected in the Black Muslim eschatology: the Jehovah's Witnesses and, to a lesser extent, in their economic activities, the Mormons. The millennial element, of course, also links the movement to traditional Christian groups and ultimately to Judaism. Similar ities to the Ras Tafarian movement of Jamaica, now established in northeastern United States, derive solely from common links to the Garvey movement.7
...
Answers to the question of specifically when the millennium will begin have been offered by various groups over the years. Most of these predicted dates have been derived from abstruse and highly individualistic juggling of Biblical numbers — a latter day adaptation of the Hebrew Kabbala. As one would conclude, as long as the beliefs remained vital, these dates were subject to constant revision. In the United States, probably the most famous of these predictions, because so many people acted on it, even going so far as to purchase "ascension robes," was that of William Miller in 1832, who predicted that the Advent would take place in 1843. During the Civil War period, other millennialists believed that the Advent would take place in 1866, and that the war then raging was but the prelude. E. L. Tuveson, for example, has discovered this note of expectancy in Julia Ward Howe's "Battle Hymn of the Republic," composed during the period.14 More recently, the Jehovah's Witnesses — founded in 1872 in Pittsburgh around a nucleus of former Millerites — have offered a series of date, all of which, of course, have had to be revised. Charles Taze Russell, the founder of the group, made his first prediction in 1878. which he later pushed forward to 1914. His successor in the movement, Judge J. R. Rutherford, first set the date at 1925, and subsequent calculations of the Watchtower Society moved the date up to 1975.15 The Reverend Billy Graham has wisely refrained from announcing a date, but, in citing the chaos of the present era as an unmistakable sign, for the past five or six years he has been preaching an imminent second coming. The Black Muslims, themselves, originally took the Jehovah's Witnesses' date — 1914 — but explained that a "grace" period had been granted to allow American Blacks to heed the message of Muhammad. The "final" date was to be 1970. It is presently expected that the event will take place some time before the year 2000, though whether this, too, is to be modified or abandoned under the new leadership is not clear.16
...
One must preface an examination of millennialism in the Black Muslim "social myth" by looking first at the celebrated break between Elijah Muhammad and Malcolm X, supposedly over Malcolm's remarks on the assassination of President Kennedy. Though unstated at the time, the break resulted from a conflict over different millennialistic assumptions, assumptions which mirror perfectly the disparities that exist between those followers of the Edwardsean, activist or northern, millennialistic version and the southern, or passive, version currently publicized by the Reverend Billy Graham: in short, between post-millennialism and premillennialism. Such a change or shift (from pre- to post-millennialism), which was implicit in Malcolm's evolving position, as we shall see, would have required an abandonment of much of the Black Muslim "social myth," a step which Elijah Muhammad was not disposed to take. The Kennedy remark became a convenient excuse for Muhammad to rid himself of a charismatic personality who threatened to destroy the "social myth" which had been so successful.21 The most obvious indication that the Black Muslim movement is premillennialist is its original belief in separatism and its long-standing injunction against political activity on the part of its members, including voting. Since the government is corrupt, it would be sinful for any righteous Muslim to participate.22
... man is by nature evil and his civilization doomed to destruction, there is, of course, no reason to integrate with it nor attempt to "reform" what is obviously "unreformable": hence separation with expectancy. Until that "final" day, however, Black Muslims expect the system to treat them justly, and Muslim leaders enjoin their members to obey all just authority. Since they must, they submit, although, as in the celebrated draft refusal case of Muhammad Ali and others, they do not submit in all things. In their attitude toward government the Black Muslims resemble the Jehovah's Witnesses, who regard all government — not just the American or Caucasian ones — as imperfect. All governments, in fact, are "obstacles" standing in the way of the establishment of Jehovah's Kingdom, the only perfect government. (Both Elijah Muhammad and Judge Rutherford, leader of the Jehovah's Witnesses, were sent to jail for obstructing American war efforts. Rutherford in 1914 and Muhammad in 1942).25 ...
Because the Fard movement in Detroit in 1930 appears to have modeled itself in many respects on the example set by the Jehovah's Witnesses, one may be easily tempted to conclude that it was responding to a set of conditions similar to those which precipitated the founding of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Black Muslim resemblances to the Jehovah's Witnesses, however, are traceable to a congruence of aims rather than to a similarity of originating conditions. Because in the beginning days of the movement Fard had no copies of the Koran to give to his followers — most of whom were illiterate — he had urged them to listen to the radio sermons of Judge Rutherford of the Jehovah's Witnesses. These sermons were consistently and sufficiently anti-religious establishment to serve Fard's aim, namely to alienate his followers from their traditional "white" Christian beliefs. Fard was shrewd enough, however, to warn his followers not to take the white man's worlds literally. They were, he warned, "symbolic," requiring "translation" by him in the Temple service. But one suspects that there was little in Rutherford's broadcasts requiring "translation," for his diatribes against established Christian religions were so extreme that he was banned from a number of radio stations. Rutherford's performance thus emboldened Fard to do the same: Christianity was the Negro's "graveyard," he declared, "the slave holder's religion."33 Fard recognized that in order for his followers to accept a new identity the old one had to be destroyed: they were to become, in the parlance of the present day, "born-again Muslims." But Detroit in 1930 was not the same as Pittsburgh in 1872, though both situations gave rise to despair, the originating emotion of millennial movements; nor were the Southern rural blacks who made up the bulk of Fard's followers in Detroit the same as those white, laboring-class Second Adventists in Pittsburg some sixty years earlier. Fard's followers faced a different and an even more despairing situation, compounded now as it was by the additional cruel factor of racism.
For while many southern rural blacks had migrated to the Detroit area during the period of the first World War, so had many southern whites, most of whom brought their racism with them. The Ku Klux Klan had become very strong in Michigan during the post-war period, and fully half of the state's membership of 70,000 resided in Detroit. During the twenties they almost captured the mayor's office. Several council members, in fact, were known to be Klan members. A particularly ugly racial confrontation had taken place in 1925 over the "Henry Sweet affair," but Clarence Darrow's brilliant courtroom victory in that case served, for the moment at least, to prevent the racial situation from deteriorating further.34 The tense racist environment remained, however, and undoubtedly facilitated the founding of the first Black Muslim community.
...
Under the leadership of Wallace D. Muhammad and his successors, the future of the Black Muslims promises to be different in some respects. The "white devil" belief is being abandoned, which means that the "Yakub" myth will be discarded and that whites are now eligible to join the organization.44 The belated recognition that Malcolm X was "ahead of his time" suggests that we shall see the Black Muslims become politically involved. In terms of millennial belief, such a shift means an abandonment of the premillennial pattern and an endorsement of the post-millennial position, since a more activist program was what Malcolm X was urging at the time of his break with [Elijah] Muhammad.
--- end of quotation ---
That was long, but it indicates a second level of complexity to the question. Much of the supposed influence, as Allen has pointed out, is not even related to doctrinal influence. In this I fully agree that there was something very important that Fard and Elijah Muhammad thought they saw in Rutherford's philosophy and social positioning and practice that they considered useful in their method of "peddling" a new religion. Also there was a more general reason to point to the doctrinal teachings of Rutherford due to their anti-establishment and anti-Catholic emphasis.
We can leave to the side for the moment any questions about just how they happened to pick up on the idea that 1914 was the time when the lease of the world's rulers ran out, or the 6,000 years since Adam leading to a 1,000 year millennium to follow, or that they as a chosen people would survive Armageddon into a new world. But that doesn't mean we covered all of the similarities yet. For example, even though Babylon the Great is considered to be America herself, the NOI taught that Babylon had fallen just shortly after 1914, in the sense that she was now doomed, and that her complete fall would be accomplished by the time of the final battle of Armageddon. At the time the Watchtower taught that Armageddon had already begun but the judgment was cut short for more to be chosen to survive. So even some ideas that seem different to us today, were actually a closer match at the time. But admittedly, causation of influence is a complex subject.
What make it more complicated is that there has been change in doctrine in both religions, JWs and NOI. Over time, the NOI may, in some ways find itself apparently more similar to JWs on some millennial doctrines, especially as they adopt a less racist and more inclusive philosophy. But it would be a mistake to think that changes they make now are evidence of influence back in the 20's and 30's. So, as I've pointed out before, no one can just look at any of these similarities one by one, outside the historical context of the full doctrine of NOI, and believe they are always seeing causation by influence. Some of the similarities will derive from coincidence, just by virtue of being another millennial religion that pulled a few ideas from the Bible (such as the 144,000, etc.).
The Nazi philosophy was a millennial philosophy, too, we must remember, but they were definitely not influenced in any way by the Watch Tower.