JW Insider

I think that Anna is on the right track as to how Jehovah's Witnesses understand the first question to be the near equivalent of the supposed "formula" in Matthew 28:19. And therefore, the primary meaning of the second question is merely a re-iteration of the desire to be a dedicated Christian associated with the world-wide brotherhood of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Although, I agree that it is not a "formula," I wonder what makes all the speakers at baptism talks (and/or administrators of Witness baptisms) around the world think they need to treat the Watchtower's words as an exact formula, and repeat them exactly as they have been translated by the Watch Tower Society into their local language?
Witness, I agree with you that it's not just a coincidence that the the Father, Son, and holy spirit are mentioned in Matthew, and that Jehovah, Jesus and the spirit-directed organization are mentioned in the Watch Tower's version of a baptismal formula.
We have already discussed how the expression "spirit-directed organization" is not meant to be limited to the earthly, visible part Jehovah's universal organization. That's from an overall doctrinal perspective. But in this particular case, I would have to agree that the addition was evidently with the earthly part of the organization in mind. I say this because I had learned that the addition was done for legal purposes.
I don't mean that the overall purpose was legal instead of spiritual, but that the legal ability for the earthly organization to remove persons from its membership roles without fear of lawsuits or repercussions has become an important practical means to keep the earthly organization clean. (Eoin and others have already begin discussing this.)
The idea that Jehovah directs the earthly, visible organization (through his spirit) is often stated in the Watchtower as integral to the idea of our dedication. I won't deny that most Witnesses are thinking primarily and sometimes only about the Watchtower Society when they think of the words: "spirit-directed organization." The idea reaches back to well before the "FDS"/"GB." For many years they were so blatant, they were almost embarrassing. The old version of the "Kingdom Ministry" when it was called "Bulletin" and "Informant" would sometimes include statements like, Brother Rutherford has been appointed by the Lord, and not following instructions coming from him would be like disobeying the Lord.
I remember another one, but can't remember which issue where it said basically that if the Lord says that pioneers should make "x" hours per month, then that's what the Lord wants. (Ironic in that the hourly quotas change every few years.) In more recent times, the idea is more subtle, but ubiquitous, as the following types of examples can be multiplied hundreds of times over:
*** w06 7/1 p. 19 They Delight to Do God’s Will ***
Graduates Andrew and Anna said: “We dedicated our life to Jehovah. We made a promise to Jehovah to do anything he asks of us. It just so happens that Jehovah has asked us to go to Cameroon, Africa.”
*** w01 1/15 p. 9 “A Masterpiece of a Project” ***
“The ‘Photo-Drama’ was a masterpiece of a project, when we consider the small number of Bible Students and the proportionately small amount of finances available. It really had Jehovah’s spirit behind it!”
*** w00 10/1 p. 29 Blessed With a Special Heritage ***
The two months we spent in Patterson as Paul received training was the highlight of our life so far. Observing Jehovah’s earthly organization up close reaffirmed a conviction passed on to me as part of my precious spiritual heritage: This is indeed God’s organization. [Italics in original 10/1/2000 Watchtower]
The legal reason was similar to the reason that the name "Jehovah's witnesses" was changed to "Jehovah's Witnesses" in the early 1970's. The first version without a capital "w" was purposely ambiguous, but that ambiguity could be taken advantage of in international copyright or intentional or misleading identification with those of similar names. The "Bible students" under Russell had similar problems with the various "Bible student" associations. "Allen Smith" has pointed out examples, in some of his posts. The split-offs of both Russell-styled Bible Students and Rutherford-styled Bible Students (and even Jehovah's Witnesses in a few cases) have been springing up for years. There has been a long-standing problem with dozens of such splinter groups and self-styled prophets in Africa, for example, that make use of the Watchtower publications as a foundation. Rutherford's doctrines have even been traced as a factor in the growth of the Black Muslim [Nation of Islam] movement in the United States.
The "apostasy of 1980-1983" became a catalyst to finally adding the reference to a specific organization into the "formula." When I was baptized, this was not included, and the Watchtower had even explained why it should not be included.
 

Every now and then we harken back  to the old clergy-laity distinction (in the form of the remnant-nonremnant distinction). Care was taken not to use this type of expression for a few years. I have rarely seen it since then, and especially not since Fred Franz died. He was one who often hinted that the non-remnant are brought to righteousness through the work of the remnant since only the remnant have Jesus as mediator. In effect, as many opposers are quick to point out, only the remnant become the mediator between Jesus and the "other sheep." It's problematic and forces the idea that the Greek Scriptures were only written to the remnant, and the only parts that can apply at least indirectly to the other sheep are those portions that the remnant will clarify for them.

If this comes up in another thread I'll try to cover the answer to your question there.
I was not a "spelling & grammar" proofreader. Several others, mostly sisters, handled that. They caught a lot of other little things, too, but they would rarely question a point of claimed fact. I was just another set of eyes focused on the "nerdier" issues. I often found places where the wrong font slipped in, or an em-dash matched with an en-dash, or where a short re-write changed a page number reference in an Index or TOC. I would also look up the original sources for the quotes and make sure the single/double and ellipses were correct, and whether reference footnotes were on the right page. There are still a couple of mistakes that remained because they were not considered serious enough to redo the plates for a 1980 printing. There are probably 5 errors of fact, but not all of them were actually questioned at the time.
Here was one of the items I questioned:
*** ka chap. 17 p. 346 par. 31 The “Slave” Who Lived to See the “Sign” ***
31 From this it is clearly seen that the editor and publisher of Zion’s Watch Tower disavowed any claim to being individually, in his person, that “faithful and wise servant.” He never did claim to be such.*
I knew that the biography of Charles Taze Russell that the WTS published had actually said that Russell really did claim in private to be "in his person, that 'faithful and wise servant.'" But that wasn't the problem, and I didn't really question that. What I questioned was the little asterisk (*) after it, because it pointed to the following at the bottom of the page:
*** ka chap. 17 The “Slave” Who Lived to See the “Sign” ***
[Footnotes]
See the book The Battle of Armageddon, published in 1897, page 613, under the heading “Dispensing of Food to the Household.—Matt. 24:45-51; Luke 12:42-46.”
The problem with this particular footnote is that this was the first primary reference where Brother Russell changed his mind about the "faithful slave." Up until a few months before this book was printed in 1897, Russell taught that the "faithful slave" was the entire household of Christians, but this particular reference was the one where Russell first began to make the argument that it really must be a single individual, not a class, and that if "he" failed in his duty he would be replaced with another single individual. And of course, from that time on he published contributed articles and letters in the Watch Tower that addressed himself as "that Servant" and "the Faithful and Wise Servant" in addition to calling some of his writings, "Meat in Due Season."  During his lifetime, after 1897 until his death, he also allowed himself to be referenced as "the faithful and wise servant" at Bible Student conventions. Of all the references to use in support of the claim in the paragraph on page 346 of ka, this was by far the worst choice outside of the Biography itself.
The other 4 errors that I'm aware of are even less relevant to the topic.
 

I can't think of any specific scripture or set of scriptures stating that some will have an earthly hope while others will have a heavenly hope, but it seems a reasonable conclusion to draw from the imagery of both "a new heavens and a new earth"
(2 Peter 3:5-13) 5 For they deliberately ignore this fact, that long ago there were heavens and an earth standing firmly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God; 6 and that by those means the world of that time suffered destruction when it was flooded with water. 7 But by the same word the heavens and the earth that now exist are reserved for fire and are being kept until the day of judgment and of destruction of the ungodly people. 8 However, do not let this escape your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. 9 Jehovah is not slow concerning his promise, as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with you because he does not desire anyone to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance. 10 But Jehovah’s day will come as a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar, but the elements being intensely hot will be dissolved, and earth and the works in it will be exposed. 11 Since all these things are to be dissolved in this way, consider what sort of people you ought to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion, 12 as you await and keep close in mind the presence of the day of Jehovah, through which the heavens will be destroyed in flames and the elements will melt in the intense heat! 13 But there are new heavens and a new earth that we are awaiting according to his promise, and in these righteousness is to dwell.
Of course, this particular passage on its own would make readers think of the earthly atmosphere as the particular heavens that will be replaced - the same heavens that existed below a "water canopy" from which rain fell.
But Jesus speaks more directly of a kind of "location" for dwelling in these "heavens:"
(John 14:1-4) . . .Exercise faith in God; exercise faith also in me. 2 In the house of my Father are many dwelling places. Otherwise, I would have told you, for I am going my way to prepare a place for you. 3 Also, if I go my way and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will receive you home to myself, so that where I am you also may be. 4 And where I am going, you know the way.”
(Matthew 13:43) 43 At that time the righteous ones will shine as brightly as the sun in the Kingdom of their Father. Let the one who has ears listen.
(Matthew 6:9, 10) 9 “You must pray, then, this way: “‘Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified. 10 Let your Kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also on earth.
(Ephesians 1:9, 10) . . .his will. It is according to his good pleasure that he himself purposed 10 for an administration at the full limit of the appointed times, to gather all things together in the Christ, the things in the heavens and the things on the earth. . . . [compare with "his will" in Matthew 6:10]
(2 Corinthians 5:1, 2) 5 For we know that if our earthly house, this tent, should be torn down, we are to have a building from God, a house not made with hands, everlasting in the heavens. 2 For in this house we do indeed groan, earnestly desiring to put on the one for us from heaven,
I don't think it's our place to decide our own specific place in which we will serve Jehovah in the future. That is up to him. I think the emphasis on an earthly hope, although not completely unique to Witnesses, is a way of presenting ourselves to Jehovah in a humble, unassuming manner. And for all we know, our joy in Jehovah's service is its own reward, and all this talk about a specific difference is a distinction without a distinction as far as we should be concerned.
I am sometimes concerned that Jesus and the apostles always put the spiritual hope on a higher plane than earthly things, and there is a danger that we promote the new "system" in terms of physical rewards - no more physical hunger, no more physical pain, no more physical sorrow, along with a life that includes all the physical pleasures we know now and perhaps more that have not even come up into our minds.
This is why for myself, I  should meditate on spiritual things so that the fruitage of that spirit is the true reflection of our motivations. In context, when Galatians spoke of the "fruit of the spirit" it was, just like Romans, referring to the outcome evidenced from the true "anointing" of the spirit. So I see no contradiction in reading the Greek Scriptures as if they are written to all of us Christians, without any "hocus-pocus" about differences as to how we need to apply certain scriptures only to those with a specific hope for a destination that might be different from my earthly hope. All of us should want to let Jehovah's spirit work in our lives.
(Romans 3:22-25) .22 yes, God’s righteousness through the faith in Jesus Christ, for all those having faith. For there is no distinction. 23 For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and it is as a free gift that they are being declared righteous by his undeserved kindness through the release by the ransom paid by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented him as an offering for propitiation through faith in his blood. . . .
(Romans 8:19-25) 19 For the creation is waiting with eager expectation for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not by its own will, but through the one who subjected it, on the basis of hope 21 that the creation itself will also be set free from enslavement to corruption and have the glorious freedom of the children of God. 22 For we know that all creation keeps on groaning together and being in pain together until now. 23 Not only that, but we ourselves also who have the firstfruits, namely, the spirit, yes, we ourselves groan within ourselves while we are earnestly waiting for adoption as sons, the release from our bodies by ransom. 24 For we were saved in this hope; but hope that is seen is not hope, for when a man sees a thing, does he hope for it? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we keep eagerly waiting for it with endurance.
(Galatians 3:10-14) 10 All those who depend on works of law are under a curse, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not remain in all the things written in the scroll of the Law by doing them.” 11 Moreover, it is evident that by law no one is declared anyone righteous with God, because “the righteous one will live by reason of faith.” 12 Now the Law is not based on faith. Rather, “who does these things will live by means of them.” 13 Christ purchased us, releasing us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse instead of us, because it is written: “Accursed is every man hung upon a stake.” 14 This was so that the blessing of Abraham would come to the nations by means of Christ Jesus, so that we might receive the promised spirit through our faith.
Generally, no matter what we feel should be our appropriate final destiny, we all still share the same hope and eager expectation of the revealing of the sons of God.
We have a situation where we read the scriptures and accept that when it says "all have sinned" it truly means "all" of us but if the same paragraph in the Bible says that Jesus propitiation is for "all having faith" then suddenly it is specifically referring to  144,000 of those having faith, not all, even though the context was exactly the same. The examples above are not the only ones, of course.
We also then have the odd situation of saying that there were two ways in which Jesus promise was given "first" or "primarily." In fact, notice that there are TWO correct answers to this question as it appears in the Reasoning book under the same heading:
[all bracketed info and parenthetical info in the quotation below are from the original source, not added by me.]
*** rs p. 308-p. 309 Ransom ***
To whom first was the merit of Jesus’ sacrifice applied, and with what objective?
Rom. 1:16: “The good news [regarding Jesus Christ and his role in Jehovah’s purpose] . . . is, in fact, God’s power for salvation to everyone having faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” (The invitation to benefit from the provision for salvation through Christ was extended first to the Jews, then to non-Jews.) . . .
Who else in our day are experiencing benefits from Jesus’ sacrifice?
1 John 2:2: “He [Jesus Christ] is a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins [those of the apostle John and other spirit-anointed Christians], yet not for ours only but also for the whole world’s [others of mankind, those for whom the prospect of eternal life on earth is thus made possible].”
John 10:16: “I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; those also I must bring, and they will listen to my voice, and they will become one flock, one shepherd.” (These “other sheep” come under the loving care of Jesus Christ while the remnant of the “little flock” of Kingdom heirs is still on earth; thus the “other sheep” can be associated with the Kingdom heirs as part of the “one flock.” They all enjoy many of the same benefits from Jesus’ sacrifice, but not identically so, because they have different destinies.)
 
Paul himself could refer to verses in the Hebrew Scriptures that mention the "nations" coming in and Paul could say that these verses indicated that the "one hope" of Christians was to be shared with the non-Jews (aka Greeks, aka Gentiles). But the Watch Tower publications have used these same Scriptural indicators to indicate a separate "hope" rather than to make the point that Paul made.  In the Watch Tower publications, we say that many of the references in the Hebrew Scriptures to anyone of goodwill among the nations is a reference to the "other sheep." I'm not comfortable with the contradiction.
 

Good point.
Glimmers of this hope were obvious however in Abraham's faith when he was about to kill his son, along with things that Job said, Elijah's experience, Enoch's experience, etc. It was unclear in the book of Ecclesiastes but became explicit however in the book of Daniel and more than hinted at in Ezekiel and other prophetic books. In Jesus' day the [fairly popular] Pharisees believed in a resurrection, but not the [more "elite"] Sadducees, of course. The development of a an "orthodox" Jewish resurrection doctrine can be seen between the time of say Ezekiel and Jesus by looking at some of the beliefs included in the pseudepigrapha and apocryphal and other deutero-canonical works from the interim period.
Another interesting idea is that Paradise could refer to either an earthly realm or a heavenly realm in these interim books, just as it does in the Greek Scriptures:
*** w15 7/15 p. 8 par. 8 Work to Enhance the Spiritual Paradise ***
What Paul saw in a supernatural vision was referred to as a revelation. It involved a future event, not something that existed in his day. When Paul “was caught away to the third heaven,” what “paradise” did he see? The paradise that Paul spoke about would have a physical, a spiritual, and a heavenly fulfillment, all of which will coexist in the future. It can refer to the physical, earthly Paradise yet to come. (Luke 23:43) It can also refer to the spiritual paradise that will be experienced to the full in the new world. Additionally, it can refer to the blessed conditions in heaven in “the paradise of God.”—Rev. 2:7.
Some of the interim Jewish literature speaks of conditions in earthly paradise in language like Isaiah's along with the idea that some fruits and vegetation would grow to giant sizes when it was harvested. Some of the phrases similar to the one found in Revelation, below, would have been read as if they were going to be earthly, physical realities.
(Revelation 22:1, 2) And he showed me a river of water of life, clear as crystal, flowing out from the throne of God and of the Lamb  down the middle of its main street. On both sides of the river were trees of life producing 12 crops of fruit, yielding their fruit each month. And the leaves of the trees were for the healing of the nations.
 

In the 1970's, we were still using blue binders with 24 "spokes" to collect the magazines, but bound volumes were being printed. 
I remember that it was long after I was baptized that I even noticed that Jesus (in Matt 5:5) was actually quoting Psalm 37 when he said the meek would inherit the earth. Today, I think there is much less emphasis on nit-picking whether a verse had to be specially applied to the anointed before we could speak about a general application to the "other sheep." I don't think anyone would say anything if you said that Jesus was speaking to people who would inherit the earth by living on it forever. I remember an article that I'm looking for now where David was originally applying the verse to the ideal situation with the Kingdom of Israel wherein they would continue to inhabit the promised land forever, and therefore inherit the earth by living on it forever if they kept up their end of the Abrahamic, Mosaic and Davidic covenants with Jehovah. It struck me as odd that the original idea was that they would inherit it forever by living and dying on the land, for the next generation to inherit.
This matches what Eoin said about the absence of a resurrection hope.
*** w74 6/15 pp. 377-378 pars. 13-14 Serve with Eternity in View ***
13 In Psalm 37:11, 29 David wrote: “The meek ones themselves will possess the earth, . . . The righteous themselves will possess the earth, and they will reside forever upon it.” In saying this he evidently drew upon what should have been the case with regard to the Promised Land in his days and in the following generations. According to God’s covenant with Abraham, the wicked pagans who had lived in the land should be cleared out. (Gen. 15:18-21; 17:8; Deut. 7:22; Josh. 21:43-45) Thus each successive generation of righteous worshipers making up the nation of Israel could have resided on the land, the portion of the earth that God gave to them. (Deut. 30:20) We know, however, that the majority of the Israelites proved unfaithful, and so they did not carry out God’s purpose in that regard. In fact, finally God let the Assyrians and Babylonians conquer and depopulate the land temporarily.
14 What David wrote in Psalm 37, though, was also a glimmering of the prospect that Christians today can have. That David’s words had a broader, large-scale application to the Kingdom rule of the entire earth is seen in the fact that at Matthew 5:5 Jesus quoted from Psalm 37. Did Christ say that its fulfillment was all in the past? No, for he projected it into the future, saying that the ‘mild-tempered will inherit the earth.’ Yes, those mild-tempered ones who are to be with Christ in his heavenly kingdom will rule over this earth. (Rev. 5:9, 10) Jesus knew that the Kingdom would rule the earth in righteousness forever. So, the earth itself will be populated by “righteous” ones who will “reside forever upon it.” Thus, by inspiration, David had described what the finale will be when Jehovah carries out his purpose for our earth. Christians can rejoice that the things of which David saw just glimmerings, and could personally share in only by means of a future resurrection, they can experience. Those whom the Lord puts on his right hand as “sheep” have the opportunity to “reside forever” on a paradise earth governed forever from heaven.
 

I think it's "spot on."
I also hope you continue to give further examples in your posts. I think this point is closely related to one of the absolutely most important recent changes to our teachings. I wanted to add some info from a historical perspective on this point. For better or for worse, I got involved in this same subject in 1978, and learned something interesting from the experience. (Interesting to me, at least.) 
For me, the experience gives some additional perspective on why it took forty-two years to make the official change, from the time this 1972 article first presented this same important question about extended applications, sometimes called: "type-antitype" applications.
The 1972 Watchtower you quoted was actually a summary of what Ray Franz had learned from the team that researched and put together the Watch Tower's first Bible encyclopedia: "Aid to Bible Understanding" (finished in 1971). The "Aid Book" research resulted in adjustments to the elder arrangement and the GB arrangement. It contains literally dozens of statements about how we can't be absolutely sure of the meaning or reason for certain Biblical references. But the biggest practical change for the Writing Department, was that this Bible dictionary/encyclopedia revolved almost completely around Biblical context. It was not a doctrinal reference.
I thought this idea about the importance of Biblical context was almost a "radical" idea, because it changed the way that many of us would read and study the Bible. The article you quoted presented the first evidence that we could question the overly specific extended applications (types and antitypes) that we were so accustomed to. It subtly moved the "type-antitype" application from a specific prophetic drama about specific classes of Christians to lessons that taught all of us something about Jehovah's unchanging principles. Everyone on the "Aid Book" team believed that only a few few specific "types and antitypes" should be a part of our doctrinal teachings. (Only the ones that were specifically said to be "type-antitype" in the Bible itself.) But this would mean that literally hundreds of type-antitype applications would have to be dropped. It was too many doctrines to change all at once. Brother Fred Franz, who was the source or "keeper" of many of the type-antitype teachings, argued against dropping them. Brother Fred Rusk (Watchtower Editor) also supported keeping them. I don't know for sure, but I assume that most of the Governing Body at that time would have sided with Fred Franz on anything doctrinal, since he was still treated as "The Oracle" at this time.
Therefore, the 1972 article was an important and controversial move, but ultimately ended up "compromising" or postponing a big change on this very important point. (The very next article was supposed to balance the idea you quoted with the idea that there are still "prophetic dramas" that have difficult and specific meanings that are too difficult to grasp from principles and context alone.)
The suggested change was not finally made until October 2014 at the Annual Meeting by Brother Splane. This was forty-two years after it was first presented in 1972. The specifics of this change were credited to Bert Schroeder during the Annual Meeting in 2014. Brother Schroeder had died in 2007, though, and I have no idea what time period Brother Splane was referring to. But I do know that Brother Schroeder suggested this change not long after the death of Fred Franz. His reasons might be clearer with a little more context.
The primary members of that "Aid Book" team continued to contribute work for the Writing Department from 1972 to 1980, and they were easily the most prolific writers of our Bible-based study material and convention releases. Many others in Writing worked from "news" material, spending a lot of their day reading about wars, earthquakes, food shortages, pestilences, and commenting on "pro" and "con" references to "Jehovah's Witnesses" found in outside publications. About 25% of the study material came from Fred Franz, mostly indirectly from those who based their "new" articles almost totally on prior articles from Franz had written. While I was there, about 75% of the study articles and all but a few of the convention releases came from the  "Aid Book" team.
The four primary members of that team were dismissed from Bethel in mid-1980. One was disfellowshipped at the time, and another (R Franz) was disfellowshipped in 1981. A couple of them tried to keep a low profile in their congregations, or even continued to get research assignments for the Society for several more years, being given a bit of support through the "special pioneer" arrangement. (Ironically, some of those continuing assignments were related to replacing the Aid Book with the updated Insight Book.) But ultimately all of them, I'm told, finally found themselves outside of the organization even though all of them, as far as I knew, had wanted to quietly remain inside the organization for as long as they were allowed. One of them lasted at least a couple of decades in his congregation, serving as an elder and special pioneer for years, but I do not currently know his status. I haven't heard from him or about him in 10 years, but I heard a rumor that he was "pushed" out.
While at Bethel, when I read through a large portion of the Aid Book for technical errors and typos, I was a bit troubled at first by the neutral, undogmatic style that sometimes said, "we don't know for sure." I mentioned this to someone on the "Aid Book" team, and said that I'm beginning to understand that the style was necessary as s a kind of public-facing, academic style. In 1978, I asked if it was troubling to anyone else. He said: "There are a lot of people here who would LOVE to hear that about the Aid Book." This really surprised me, because this was early in 1978 and it was a hint of trouble. He explained that the Aid Book was considered "dangerous" and had created a division between Fred Franz supporters in Writing, because it put a new value on context, and relatively less value on "extended applications."
He said that the most common response (letters/comments) from those who had become familiar with the Aid Book's style were commenting on how much more value they were getting out of their Bible reading because they were realizing for the first time that the meaning from context was now more open to them. For example, they no longer read Ezekiel 18 as just the chapter that had a verse or two about the soul dying (18:4). There's another message in the context that is also very important, and they hadn't noticed it before. By 1975 there were many brothers who had been so overjoyed at this "new" way of reading the Bible that groups of Bethelites would join others in their rooms just for Bible reading. The Aid Book "style" was being credited. Because all of these Bible reading groups were "banned" in 1980, and even brothers on the Governing Body spoke out against them, it was assumed that these all had something to do with the apostasy. But there were dozens of them, and hundreds of Bethelites participated. It's true that most of the "apostates" had also participated, but the majority of participants remained in responsible positions.
I regularly attended one in the room of a brother from Writing that often went on for three hours on Wednesday. Whenever I could, I also started attending another one after the Monday-night Watchtower study for one hour. One of these had one of the "Aid Book" team and I was questioned about it later in 1980, although I continued to do research for Brother Schroeder from 1977 until 1983. Schroeder kept a good measure of personal control over who was and was not dismissed for "apostasy" 1980 through 1983. Yet, even Brother Schroeder quietly sided with the "Aid Book" team on this same point about "type-antitype" during the 1980 crisis. My best friends in the Writing Department also included Brother Fred Rusk, who gave my wedding talk later in 1980. (I last saw and spoke to Rusk in 2013, at a funeral talk.) Rusk and Schroeder were both very strong opposers of the entire Aid Book team. But I kept friends on "both sides of the aisle."
I don't know how easy it is to tell that the writer of the article below was asked to write in support of types and antitypes but was intentionally "subversive" or "ambiguous" in a way that would still get past the editors.
*** w72 8/15 p. 501 God Readjusts the Thinking of His People ***
JEHOVAH is infallible, and he is the Great Teacher and Leader of his people. (Ps. 143:10) They are fallible, and at no point do they understand all things. . . .
Another thing that has given rise to questions is the use by Jehovah’s witnesses of parallels or prophetic types, applying these to circumstances and to groups or classes of people today. Many people who read the Bible view its accounts all as simply history, but when they begin to study with Jehovah’s witnesses a readjustment of viewpoint takes place as they see that there is more to the accounts than history.
The question that is sometimes asked is, Did Jehovah stage that ‘dramatic’ event, so that we would have a warning now? Well, would he cause such bad things to happen? Would he maneuver them himself? No. The Christian disciple James answers: “With evil things God cannot be tried nor does he himself try anyone.” (Jas. 1:13). . . .
We can therefore read what took place with ancient Israel and surrounding nations and know that they were just as real as our situation today and that God will act toward us according to the same principles, just as surely as he did back there. As we benefit from the record of God’s dealings with his people in the past, we experience a readjustment of viewpoint. But, of course, at times there may be points that we find difficult to grasp.
 
 
 

What letter do you see in the attached  photo? If you answer is an "A" well, you are right, but partially. Did you also observe the "B" close to the upper right corner? This aims to demonstrate the "evil" (side) effect of a spotlight: anything inside the focus obscures the surrounding area. And this is my question:
Have we, the JW put so much emphasis, for decades and decades, to the extended applications of some cherished, favorite verses till the point to obscure the more basic, beautiful and inspired meaning?
Only two examples:
(Proverbs 27:23) "You should know well the appearance of your flock…"
Ask any brother around the world about the meaning of this verse. "Easy: the spiritual shepherds should be familiar with the situation and problems of the brothers in the congregation." Right, this has been always the "spotlight" we've found reading our literature, hearing in the meetings and attending several schools. But this is an extended application. Not the real use for the writer of Proverbs. And this inspired meaning is, obviously more important than our "added" point.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I've only read once in my life the exact meaning of the verse quoted:
 w91 8/1 p. 31 Questions From Readers *** What basic counsel is Proverbs 27:23 offering to spiritual shepherds as well as to Christians in general?
Follow part of the article: ======================================
"...The book of Proverbs contains many verses that stand alone as pithy statements of counsel, but Proverbs 27:23 is part of a group of verses: “You ought to know positively the appearance of your flock. Set your heart to your droves; for treasure will not be to time indefinite, nor a diadem for all generations. The green grass has departed, and the new grass has appeared, and the vegetation of the mountains has been gathered. The young rams are for your clothing, and the he-goats are the price of the field. And there is a sufficiency of goats’ milk for your food, for the food of your household, and the means of life for your girls.”—Proverbs 27:23-27.
This inspired passage extols having a life-style marked by diligence, industriousness, simplicity, and recognition of our dependence on Jehovah. It does this by highlighting the pastoral life of an Israelite shepherd, perhaps in contrast with a flamboyant life based on business deals and quick riches...."
"...Proverbs 27:26, 27 mentions one result of such labor—food and clothing. Granted, the description is not of fancy convenience foods or gourmet specialties, nor does it give a laborer reason to expect clothing in the latest designer style or the best material. But if he was willing to put forth effort, the shepherd and his family could obtain from the flock milk (and thus cheese), as well as wool for weaving sturdy garments.
So the advice: “You ought to know positively the appearance of your flock” is not primarily for spiritual overseers; it is for all Christians. It underscores the value of our being content with sustenance and covering obtained by steady, diligent work,"
====================================== End of the quote
Aren't these fine admonitions! I'm sad that this basic, genuine and inspired teaching remains blurred under the light power of the dozens of our "extended" applications.
And what now? Are we without verses to encourage to our shepherds in this regard? By no means! Perhaps Acts 20:28 "Pay attention...to all the flock?" between many others.
Any way, if we are tempted to continue with our indiscriminate custom, let's consider this wise advice:
*** w72 8/15 p. 499 Questions That Disturb You—What Should You Do? ***
Quote follows======================================
However, we should not be indiscriminate and careless in applying Bible texts, remembering, rather, that the contextual application is the primary and basic one. If it is possible to use the text in a secondary or broader application in principle, it can add force to our presentation to point out to our hearers the basic contextual sense and to make clear that we are using the text in its secondary application, applying it only in principle.
====================================== End of the quote
What do you think about my view? Ah, it remains another blatant example, but better for another post
My affection to everyone, and I apologize for my English, not my mother language.

JW Insider, it is from the family's collection. It is from Ithaca, Cornell University 

Success—Despite Opposition
Translating and printing was one thing. Getting the Bibles to Britain was another. Church agents and secular authorities were determined to prevent shipments across the English Channel, but friendly merchants had the answer. Hidden in bales of cloth and other merchandise, the volumes were smuggled to the shores of England and up into Scotland. Tyndale was encouraged, but his fight had only begun.
On February 11, 1526, Cardinal Wolsey, accompanied by 36 bishops and other church dignitaries, assembled near St. Paul’s Cathedral in London “to see great basketfuls of books cast into a fire.” Included among them were some copies of Tyndale’s precious translation. Of this first edition, there are now just two copies extant. The only complete one (lacking just the title page) is in the British Library. Ironically, the other, with 71 pages missing, was discovered in St. Paul’s Cathedral Library. How it got there, nobody knows.
Undaunted, Tyndale continued to produce fresh editions of his translation, which were systematically confiscated and burned by English clerics. Then Tunstall changed tactics. He struck a bargain with a merchant named Augustine Packington to buy any books written by Tyndale, including the New Testament, in order to burn them. This was arranged with Tyndale, with whom Packington had made an agreement. Halle’s Chronicle says: “The bishop had the books, Packington had the thanks, and Tyndale had the money. Afterward when more New Testaments were imprinted, they came thick and threefold into England.”
Why were the clergy so bitterly opposed to Tyndale’s translation? Whereas the Latin Vulgate tended to veil the sacred text, Tyndale’s rendering from the original Greek for the first time conveyed the Bible’s message in clear language to the English people. For example, Tyndale chose to translate the Greek word a·gaʹpe as “love” instead of “charity” in 1 Corinthians chapter 13. He insisted on “congregation” rather than “church” to emphasize worshipers, not church buildings. The last straw for the clergy, however, came when Tyndale replaced “priest” with “elder” and used “repent” rather than “do penance,” thereby stripping the clergy of their assumed priestly powers. David Daniell says in this regard: “Purgatory is not there; there is no aural confession and penance. Two supports of the Church’s wealth and power collapsed.” (William Tyndale—A Biography) That was the challenge Tyndale’s translation presented, and modern scholarship fully endorses the accuracy of his choice of words.
READ MORE:
*** w95 11/15 p. 26 William Tyndale—A Man of Vision ***
 
 

 
 
*** na pp. 17-18 God’s Name and Bible Translators ***
The name first appeared in an English Bible in 1530, when William Tyndale published a translation of the first five books of the Bible.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Thanks. I have never heard about opposers promulgating this. I can't see how it would add anything or take away anything from our reputation. It's not something that we as Witnesses would promote as part of our history, but it shows why it's important to keep a legal distinction that defines membership. Several denominations handle baptism very similarly.
To help avoid too much off-topic discussion here, I've added a new question on this subject of Rutherford's influence:
 

The new yearbook is on jw.org. It is not on the Watchtower Library CD. Perhaps the Watchtower Library will bring it over as an automatic update. Mine is set up to do that, but the 2017 yb did not download yet.

The new yearbook is on jw.org. It is not on the Watchtower Library CD. Perhaps the Watchtower Library will bring it over as an automatic update. Mine is set up to do that, but the 2017 yb did not download yet.

The new yearbook is on jw.org. It is not on the Watchtower Library CD. Perhaps the Watchtower Library will bring it over as an automatic update. Mine is set up to do that, but the 2017 yb did not download yet.

Allen,
You did it again! You opposed something, but then provided evidence that you were wrong and that you were opposing the truth again.
I have often kind of "marveled" at how you often take an oppositional position to certain facts and ideas and then when you present the information to try to denigrate these facts and ideas, you end up providing evidence that you were wrong and the person you were opposing was right!
Here's how you did it this time:
Then you quoted, and even highlighted a portion of the evidence that agrees with the statement I made, and would indicate that you were wrong:
I would give the same two pieces of evidence you just gave, as evidence in support of the same fact that you are opposing. You offered these bits of evidence about "Fard" as if you didn't realize that he was one of the founders of the "Nation of Islam." Therefore, if you indicate that Fard used stories from the teachings of Joseph F. "Judge" Rutherford, then you are merely providing evidence that: "Rutherford's doctrines have even been traced as a factor in the growth of the Black Muslim [Nation of Islam] movement in the United States."
As a reminder to those who may not be aware, here is the opening Wikipedia entry for Fard:
Wallace D. Fard aka Wallace Fard Muhammad /fə.ˈrɑːd/ (born February 26, 1877[3]) was a co-founder of the Nation of Islam. He arrived in Detroit in 1930 with an obscure background and several aliases, and taught a distinctive form of Islam to members of the city's African-American population. He disappeared in 1934.

Arrogance, self-righteousness also has adverse effects on others and sometimes more devastating. IT leaves othes with feeling worthlessness and pain for being rejected. 
  YEsterday we learnt that we should rather let ourselves be wronged- this is not just regarding money - it is about the way we live.   WE need to cultivate a self-sacrificing spirit like Jesus - who gave everything he had for us.  
When we comfort others we are comforted by the Holy Spirit... when we give we receive so much more back from others together with Jehovah's blessing.  I speak of experience.  I have given attention to those whom others avoid and have found that these people need kind attention to be healed - not avoidance.
Self-righteousness is at war not with the person within themselves but is at war with Jehovah's Spirit.  Job fell into the sin of self-righteousness. SAtan displayed  pride - that was his sin.  
YEs we can fight the war in ourselves- to keep ourselves pure from this world and resist eveything it offers- even resist negative attitudes displYed by others  in a kind way- not by being superior but by being humble and comforting to all... not judgmental but give  acceptance And love.
how can we say we love God if we cannot overcome the evil by means of the love for our neighbour?

I do not agree with this statement offered above - it is words of a man.  I have not seen a statement in the bible which sAys that we should avoid those at war with themselves.  HOw does one define the outward symptoms of being at war with yourself? WE are all at war with the fleshly part of our existence as apposed to being perfectly in line with JehovAh and his spirit - as duly noted by one of the replies.  WE must be cAreful not to judge those who have emotional issues because the bible says we must deal tenderly with those who are experiencing distress.  I can imagine the stress a person must feel when they are at war with themselves - whatever the personAl baggage that has brought this about.  
Being deceitful,  indecisive about serving Jehovah whole-souled, being stupid (according to the bible this means that one acts outside the "knowledge of Jehovah"  and NOT the definition of being at war with yourself) now this is a different matter.  I do however  agree that we must be cAreful that  associations  do not influence us negatively. 
Be careful of self-righteousness - this  can cause even greater dAmage in a congregation. I knew a sister who was always avoiding people becAuse they were doing things that she deemed unworthy of association.  It caused tremendous uneasiness when people were Around her and she hurt many feelings- tHis is the otherr side of the coin.  
I did not write this to start a debate but merely do make my fellow worshipers think about their words And actions - imperfection and injustice can make us condemn where condemnation is not needed.  AN anointed sister once gave me the best advice EVER!  SHe said: when in doubt About what to do - show love.  WE can assist the weak and help strenghen those around us who are suffering and having issues.  WIth patience And love we can win And support them And help them adjust their attitude. LOve nevr fails! IT hopes all things. 
USually the elders will guide us to mark those who need adjustment. WE should not be going around indiscriminately marking people inside the congregation.   THose outside the congregation is of course are not our associates.
 

“People at war with themselves will always cause collateral damage in the lives of those around them.” ― John Mark Green
My favorite "poetic quote" from John Mark Green is this:
“One by one she slew her fears, and then planted a flower garden over their graves.”
― John Mark Green
But I can't find a good scripture text to go with it. There's always that passage about Jezebel and Naboth's vineyard....nah!

I don't remember any statement like that. Where did you see it (or hear it)?
BTW, here it is again from a Seventh Day Adventist University in Nigeria. Very similar to Bethel's version.
 

Or, from a different perspective . . . Be careful who you associate with. Those who are at war with themselves have a a better appreciation and empathy for those around them. (Less chance of collateral damage.)
(Romans 7:22-25) 22 I really delight in the law of God according to the man I am within, 23 but I see in my body another law warring against the law of my mind and leading me captive to sin’s law that is in my body. 24 Miserable man that I am! Who will rescue me from the body undergoing this death? 25 Thanks to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So, then, with my mind I myself am a slave to God’s law, but with my flesh to sin’s law.
(ESV) "But I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members."
 

“People at war with themselves will always cause collateral damage in the lives of those around them.” ― John Mark Green
My favorite "poetic quote" from John Mark Green is this:
“One by one she slew her fears, and then planted a flower garden over their graves.”
― John Mark Green
But I can't find a good scripture text to go with it. There's always that passage about Jezebel and Naboth's vineyard....nah!

Or, from a different perspective . . . Be careful who you associate with. Those who are at war with themselves have a a better appreciation and empathy for those around them. (Less chance of collateral damage.)
(Romans 7:22-25) 22 I really delight in the law of God according to the man I am within, 23 but I see in my body another law warring against the law of my mind and leading me captive to sin’s law that is in my body. 24 Miserable man that I am! Who will rescue me from the body undergoing this death? 25 Thanks to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So, then, with my mind I myself am a slave to God’s law, but with my flesh to sin’s law.
(ESV) "But I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members."
 

I think that Anna is on the right track as to how Jehovah's Witnesses understand the first question to be the near equivalent of the supposed "formula" in Matthew 28:19. And therefore, the primary meaning of the second question is merely a re-iteration of the desire to be a dedicated Christian associated with the world-wide brotherhood of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Although, I agree that it is not a "formula," I wonder what makes all the speakers at baptism talks (and/or administrators of Witness baptisms) around the world think they need to treat the Watchtower's words as an exact formula, and repeat them exactly as they have been translated by the Watch Tower Society into their local language?
Witness, I agree with you that it's not just a coincidence that the the Father, Son, and holy spirit are mentioned in Matthew, and that Jehovah, Jesus and the spirit-directed organization are mentioned in the Watch Tower's version of a baptismal formula.
We have already discussed how the expression "spirit-directed organization" is not meant to be limited to the earthly, visible part Jehovah's universal organization. That's from an overall doctrinal perspective. But in this particular case, I would have to agree that the addition was evidently with the earthly part of the organization in mind. I say this because I had learned that the addition was done for legal purposes.
I don't mean that the overall purpose was legal instead of spiritual, but that the legal ability for the earthly organization to remove persons from its membership roles without fear of lawsuits or repercussions has become an important practical means to keep the earthly organization clean. (Eoin and others have already begin discussing this.)
The idea that Jehovah directs the earthly, visible organization (through his spirit) is often stated in the Watchtower as integral to the idea of our dedication. I won't deny that most Witnesses are thinking primarily and sometimes only about the Watchtower Society when they think of the words: "spirit-directed organization." The idea reaches back to well before the "FDS"/"GB." For many years they were so blatant, they were almost embarrassing. The old version of the "Kingdom Ministry" when it was called "Bulletin" and "Informant" would sometimes include statements like, Brother Rutherford has been appointed by the Lord, and not following instructions coming from him would be like disobeying the Lord.
I remember another one, but can't remember which issue where it said basically that if the Lord says that pioneers should make "x" hours per month, then that's what the Lord wants. (Ironic in that the hourly quotas change every few years.) In more recent times, the idea is more subtle, but ubiquitous, as the following types of examples can be multiplied hundreds of times over:
*** w06 7/1 p. 19 They Delight to Do God’s Will ***
Graduates Andrew and Anna said: “We dedicated our life to Jehovah. We made a promise to Jehovah to do anything he asks of us. It just so happens that Jehovah has asked us to go to Cameroon, Africa.”
*** w01 1/15 p. 9 “A Masterpiece of a Project” ***
“The ‘Photo-Drama’ was a masterpiece of a project, when we consider the small number of Bible Students and the proportionately small amount of finances available. It really had Jehovah’s spirit behind it!”
*** w00 10/1 p. 29 Blessed With a Special Heritage ***
The two months we spent in Patterson as Paul received training was the highlight of our life so far. Observing Jehovah’s earthly organization up close reaffirmed a conviction passed on to me as part of my precious spiritual heritage: This is indeed God’s organization. [Italics in original 10/1/2000 Watchtower]
The legal reason was similar to the reason that the name "Jehovah's witnesses" was changed to "Jehovah's Witnesses" in the early 1970's. The first version without a capital "w" was purposely ambiguous, but that ambiguity could be taken advantage of in international copyright or intentional or misleading identification with those of similar names. The "Bible students" under Russell had similar problems with the various "Bible student" associations. "Allen Smith" has pointed out examples, in some of his posts. The split-offs of both Russell-styled Bible Students and Rutherford-styled Bible Students (and even Jehovah's Witnesses in a few cases) have been springing up for years. There has been a long-standing problem with dozens of such splinter groups and self-styled prophets in Africa, for example, that make use of the Watchtower publications as a foundation. Rutherford's doctrines have even been traced as a factor in the growth of the Black Muslim [Nation of Islam] movement in the United States.
The "apostasy of 1980-1983" became a catalyst to finally adding the reference to a specific organization into the "formula." When I was baptized, this was not included, and the Watchtower had even explained why it should not be included.
 

Of course it applies to child molesters
If you are going to make these statements then please back them up with evidence. How do you know known molesters are being treated the same way as they were before they were found out? How do you know nothing is done?
Indeed. If there is no proof of murder, drunkenness or fornication then not even the Law can do anything about it. The congregation leaves it in Jehovah's hands until there is evidence. You now the saying, "innocent until proven guilty".
How is that policing???

Which category is that?
There are all sorts of evil-doers who want to be a part of the organisation but who are excluded by their practices.
I have known some get baptised without completing a Bible Study program and an assessment of progress made. Someone like that (at a later date) may feel they actually had not dedicated themselves to Jehovah at the time, do so on the basis of improved understanding, then resubmit for baptism. They determined the validity of their earlier dedication themselves. I would say that the incidence rate of this happening now would be comparatively rare.
I have known others who submitted for baptism having followed all procedures and have become a part of the congregation but were subsequently found to have ulterior motives and merely served as infiltrators, intent on some selfish objective. There may have been a relationship, sexual or otherwise, involved. I have heard of other instances in times of persecution or ban where informers have infiltrated. Truly determined evil-doers of this type may be difficult to detect, but I have confidence in Paul's words at 1Tim.5:24. In time, some of these ones remove themselves, or get removed, sadly, not without damage on occasion. It would be highly unlikely that any of the perpetrators in such scenarios made a dedication at all.
Another scenario was discussed recently in the Watchtower 15/2/2010 p23:
"At the time of baptism, for instance, an individual may secretly have been living in a situation or engaging in a practice that could have resulted in his being disfellowshipped if he had already been validly baptized. Could he make a dedication to God in such circumstances? Such an individual would have been in a position to make a valid dedication to Jehovah only if the unscriptural conduct had been discontinued." 
As for those who have engaged in serious wrongdoing prior to dedication, but who have repented and turned around, then 1Cor. 5:9-11 applies. And for those who lapse (or relapse) into such sin AFTER dedication, such a matter of itself would not render their dedication invalid. On the contrary, on the basis of their dedication, Jehovah will require an accounting. Rom.14:12.
So, the answer to your question "Are all who were/are baptized still bound to this vow?" is actually:
NO! Only those who have made an acceptible dedication to Jehovah are.