JW Insider

Most Witnesses would agree that just visiting a church for the artistic or historical significance is not a problem. When I worked in NYC (1984 to 2014) I worked at 787 7th and then for about 2 years in our auditing department offices at 30 Rockefeller Center (aka "30 Rock"). From my window you could always see St Pats church on the next block and an even closer xmas tree for about 2 months out of every year. On my lunch hour I'd go to various free operas and classical musical performances at St Patrick's, or even a couple blocks further up 5th ave to a large Presbyterian church for its lunchtime concerts. These weren't religious at all, although some Witnesses wouldn't even listen to Bach or various operas because of religious backgrounds and overtones. The acoustics and echoing make many types of music sound amazing inside one of these cathedrals. Choral especially. It might be wrong, but I'll take my Gregorian chantses.

Most Witnesses would agree that just visiting a church for the artistic or historical significance is not a problem. When I worked in NYC (1984 to 2014) I worked at 787 7th and then for about 2 years in our auditing department offices at 30 Rockefeller Center (aka "30 Rock"). From my window you could always see St Pats church on the next block and an even closer xmas tree for about 2 months out of every year. On my lunch hour I'd go to various free operas and classical musical performances at St Patrick's, or even a couple blocks further up 5th ave to a large Presbyterian church for its lunchtime concerts. These weren't religious at all, although some Witnesses wouldn't even listen to Bach or various operas because of religious backgrounds and overtones. The acoustics and echoing make many types of music sound amazing inside one of these cathedrals. Choral especially. It might be wrong, but I'll take my Gregorian chantses.

If there are any “dots to connect”, an isolated tourist tour to the U.N. is not one of them. 
I visited Disneyland once.
That does not make me a Mousekateer.

AND … nobody had to wear Mickey Mouse ears …. either!

I've mentioned before that I was a "Gilead Tour Guide" from 1978 to 1981 for several different classes. I wasn't assigned the UN visit (and I don't recall that there was one at that time) but I took them on tours of NYC including the Financial District (Wall Street area) and Midtown: Rockefeller Center & Central Park & 42nd Street Library. That tour included an old St Patrick's cathedral (Prince & Mott) downtown, and the huge "new" St Patrick's cathedral in Rockefeller Center. We didn't go in the smaller one downtown to avoid attracting attention as a conspicuously large group of JWs in a relatively smaller church, but we always took the entire group into the much larger St Patrick's cathedral in Rockefeller Center (5th & 51st).
The fact that there were tours of the UN doesn't mean anything. Just like going into St Patrick's church didn't mean we were turning Roman Catholic. I do remember that there were sometimes one or two who wouldn't go in to the church. They were free to wait in front for the rest of the group to finish. The more vocal of the Gilead students would ask why we were going in: "What if Armageddon comes when you are inside?" One of them once tried to convince a couple others that this might be a test to see who would "fall for it" and go inside. What was most memorable to me was that some wanted to wait directly across the street so they wouldn't even be on the same block. They ended up standing under and next to the large statue of the Titan "god" Atlas, as if he would be strong enough to save them, while Jehovah somehow would not be able to protect anyone who had chosen to look inside a cathedral.

I've mentioned before that I was a "Gilead Tour Guide" from 1978 to 1981 for several different classes. I wasn't assigned the UN visit (and I don't recall that there was one at that time) but I took them on tours of NYC including the Financial District (Wall Street area) and Midtown: Rockefeller Center & Central Park & 42nd Street Library. That tour included an old St Patrick's cathedral (Prince & Mott) downtown, and the huge "new" St Patrick's cathedral in Rockefeller Center. We didn't go in the smaller one downtown to avoid attracting attention as a conspicuously large group of JWs in a relatively smaller church, but we always took the entire group into the much larger St Patrick's cathedral in Rockefeller Center (5th & 51st).
The fact that there were tours of the UN doesn't mean anything. Just like going into St Patrick's church didn't mean we were turning Roman Catholic. I do remember that there were sometimes one or two who wouldn't go in to the church. They were free to wait in front for the rest of the group to finish. The more vocal of the Gilead students would ask why we were going in: "What if Armageddon comes when you are inside?" One of them once tried to convince a couple others that this might be a test to see who would "fall for it" and go inside. What was most memorable to me was that some wanted to wait directly across the street so they wouldn't even be on the same block. They ended up standing under and next to the large statue of the Titan "god" Atlas, as if he would be strong enough to save them, while Jehovah somehow would not be able to protect anyone who had chosen to look inside a cathedral.

This is somewhat true, hence why I am not too keen of AI and or agendas, especially AI. But what I had noticed over the years, any organization that the Left sides with (this goes for Alt groups too), they are not has harsh with specific groups and or faiths when something bad happens, even a crime among members, this goes for the religious folks on their side, you wouldn't catch PBS bashing their own in this regard.
Now, if it is something that they are against, they are quick to attack, mock, and formulate narratives to try and cast doubt and crush one's hope and or faith, for example, Trump Followers, MAGA, of which they preach are all cultist and evil because they noted a few bad folks among them, but the same people will not say a single word about ANTIFA, of how, recently, they attacked parents who want to defend their kids from an already, for a long time now, corrupt Higher Education System.
Regarding Jehovah's Witnesses, the assumption on the Left is that JWs are Conservatives whereas disgruntled EXJWs will tell you JWs are Left-Wing, when in reality, they are neutral, or in this case, apolitical like other groups. Reasons why whenever there is News, anything breaking, Fox News (pre-Tucker Carlson) for example, are not as harsh with them because of views of religious freedom and the like, mainly when any member of the JW faith commits a crime, they focus the attention of the person who committed the crime, and will be in the middle in some things. Now you go to the Left or any Alt side, they go on full attack mode, hence why you see Left-Wing outlets like Atlantic, Guardian, CNN, etc. stick to one side. The reality is majority of EXJWs rely on Left Wing sources and speakers. Now current Jehovah's Witnesses, have among them who are gullible when it comes to the MSM, and although neutral, a few of them may bear some level of influence by the Agenda the MSM pushes, to a degree, some even succumb to conspiracy theory rather of what is true, this is the same with the EXJW counterpart who are far more quick to accept something (we see many examples of this here on the forums)
That being said, the Wild Beast, the UN making a move that will change the lives of many very soon, and I can tell you now, that what they have in store, will result in the same paradigm of one side vs the other, and people will get caught in the crossfire, among the people caught, many will be among the JWs and EXJWs collectively, if they do not tread carefully.

I see you did it again. You didn't even use ellipses to show that you are starting the quote in the middle of a sentence. Many months ago I would give you the benefit of the doubt because it could have merely been a matter of lack of comprehension. But I see you have the ability to go out of your way to be dishonest. For clarity here is the original quote again:
I believe that Jesus and Jehovah are the same in will and purpose. I believe that's what Jesus meant when he said "I and the Father are one." It's what we teach as Jehovah's Witnesses.
What you have done is not much different than someone who would try to say the Watchtower promotes the Trinity doctrine just because the following three quotes are "accurate" in the sense that they are unaltered:
*** nwtsty Philippians Study Notes—Chapter 2 ***
the phrase “Jesus Christ is Lord” means that he and his Father, Jehovah, are the same person.
*** pm chap. 21 p. 389 par. 53 Theocracy Triumphs over All the Nations ***
at the time of the baptism of Jesus in the year 29 C.E. the name of this Son of God became a ‘substitute or a replacement for Jehovah’ and that Jesus is the same as Jehovah and hence the name Jehovah does not need to be used anymore.
*** ad p. 894 Jehovah Is Our Righteousness ***
this means that Jesus, the Messiah, and Jehovah are the same, forming one God.
Using quotes like that is dishonest because it leaves out the first part of the quote containing key information showing that the Watchtower actually holds an opposite viewpoint.
If you agree that it would be dishonest to use these quotations the way they are presented above, then you are admitting to being dishonest by doing the something just like it with my quote.

You are selectively quoting again to make it look like I said the opposite of what was actually said. It's considered dishonest to create a partial quote to make it look like someone said something they didn't. To clarify, I will include the full quote below so that anyone can see what you tried to do.
I assume that you actually believe exactly as I stated that "In will and purpose Jehovah and Jesus are the same." For even more context, read the question in the original post and my FULL response further above.
Please be more careful when quoting persons. This is not the first time you have used quotes from me and distorted their purpose and made them seem like they were saying something quite different from what I actually said. In fact, you misquoted me from this very forum and put it on one of your websites and in a book of yours which is still available online. You used that quote to make it appear I was supporting another theory of yours that turned out to be false.
Please take a lesson from your own false accusation against me. The projection and blame-shifting is very revealing:
I am guessing that all this vitriol and anger and divisiveness and contention on your part are a result of seeing the evidence that your theory was false and that the Watchtower article I quoted was true. If you are angry that the Watchtower rejects your false theory, then please take it up with the Branch, the Writing Department, the Governing Body, the WTBTS, or the CCJW. I think it will only continue to embarrass you if you continue to lash out dishonestly against other persons on this forum.

I see you did it again. You didn't even use ellipses to show that you are starting the quote in the middle of a sentence. Many months ago I would give you the benefit of the doubt because it could have merely been a matter of lack of comprehension. But I see you have the ability to go out of your way to be dishonest. For clarity here is the original quote again:
I believe that Jesus and Jehovah are the same in will and purpose. I believe that's what Jesus meant when he said "I and the Father are one." It's what we teach as Jehovah's Witnesses.
What you have done is not much different than someone who would try to say the Watchtower promotes the Trinity doctrine just because the following three quotes are "accurate" in the sense that they are unaltered:
*** nwtsty Philippians Study Notes—Chapter 2 ***
the phrase “Jesus Christ is Lord” means that he and his Father, Jehovah, are the same person.
*** pm chap. 21 p. 389 par. 53 Theocracy Triumphs over All the Nations ***
at the time of the baptism of Jesus in the year 29 C.E. the name of this Son of God became a ‘substitute or a replacement for Jehovah’ and that Jesus is the same as Jehovah and hence the name Jehovah does not need to be used anymore.
*** ad p. 894 Jehovah Is Our Righteousness ***
this means that Jesus, the Messiah, and Jehovah are the same, forming one God.
Using quotes like that is dishonest because it leaves out the first part of the quote containing key information showing that the Watchtower actually holds an opposite viewpoint.
If you agree that it would be dishonest to use these quotations the way they are presented above, then you are admitting to being dishonest by doing the something just like it with my quote.

2 Pet 1:1 "Simon Peter, a slave and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have acquired a faith as precious as ours through the righteousness of our God and the Savior Jesus Christ:"
 
2 Pet 1:11 "In fact, in this way you will be richly granted entrance into the everlasting Kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."
Acts 5:31 "God exalted this one as Chief Agent and Savior to his right hand, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins."

In addition to the comments above, these scriptures clearly show that Jesus will perform the resurrection with full power and authority from his Father.
(John 5:25-30) . . .the hour is coming, and it is now, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who have paid attention will live. 26 For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted also to the Son to have life in himself. 27 And he has given him authority to do judging, because he is the Son of man. 28 Do not be amazed at this, for the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice 29 and come out, those who did good things to a resurrection of life, and those who practiced vile things to a resurrection of judgment. 30 I cannot do a single thing of my own initiative. Just as I hear, I judge, and my judgment is righteous because I seek, not my own will, but the will of him who sent me.
 
*** w79 6/15 p. 20 par. 18 Resurrected—“Each In His Own Proper Place” ***
18 Jesus Christ releases mankind only from the Adamic death and our common grave, Haʹdes. He assured us of this when he said: “I am the First and the Last, and the living one; . . . and I have the keys of death and of Haʹdes.” (Rev. 1:17, 18) So, with good reason, Jesus said to Martha: “I am the resurrection and the life.”—John 11:25.
 
*** w76 4/15 p. 244 par. 18 Why We Need the Kingdom of Jesus Christ ***
In heaven the glorified Jesus Christ can still say: “I am the resurrection and the life.” That he is authorized by God his Father to raise the dead, he assures us by his words in the Revelation vision to John: “I became dead, but, look! I am living forever and ever, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.”—Rev. 1:18.
 
(Bold text - mine)

When I was a boy, I heard my father give the Society's hour talk on the book of Job about 10 times. The talk spent a good portion of the time showing that Behemoth was a hippopotamus, and Leviathan was a crocodile.
Of course, very little time was spent on the fact that the book of Job also says the following about the Behemoth, which is not at all true of a hippo:
(Job 40:15-20) 15 Here, now, is Be·heʹmoth, which I made as I made you. . . . 17It stiffens [or, sways] its tail like a cedar; The sinews of its thighs are woven together. 18 Its bones are tubes of copper; Its limbs are like wrought-iron rods. 19It ranks first [or, "it is the beginning" -- NWT footnote] among the works of God; Only its Maker can approach it with his sword. 20For the mountains produce food for it, Where all the wild animals play.
The little tail of the hippopotamus does not move or sway like a cedar. It was hardly the beginning of God's creative works. The mountains do not produce food for it. Creatures much more terrifying than hippos have been caught and hunted by man for centuries. When we know what Behemoth is we can then understand why it is tied to the creation of man (cf. "which I made as I made you"), and why it is said to be "first" among God's creative works. Another curious thing about "Behemoth" is that it is a plural word. If it is a type of "plural of majesty" (as in Elohim, or "God of Gods"), then it could mean something like, "Beast of Beasts."
The Leviathan is even less like a crocodile than Behemoth is like a hippo. Note:
(Job 41:1-34) . . .“Can you catch Le·viʹa·than with a fishhook Or hold down its tongue with a rope?  . . . 7 Will you fill its hide with harpoons Or its head with fishing spears?  8 Lay your hand on it; You will remember the battle and never do it again!  9 Any hope of subduing it is futile. The mere sight of it would overwhelm you. 10 No one dares to stir it up. . . . 12 I will not be silent about its limbs, About its mightiness and its well-formed body. 13 Who has removed its outer covering? Who will enter its open jaws? 14 Who can pry open the doors of its mouth? Its teeth all around are fearsome. 15 Its back has rows of scales Tightly sealed together. 16 Each one fits so closely to the other That no air can come between them. 17 They are stuck to one another; They cling together and cannot be separated. 18 Its snorting flashes out light, And its eyes are like the rays of dawn. Flashes of lightning go out of its mouth; Fiery sparks escape. 20 Smoke pours out of its nostrils, Like a furnace fueled with rushes. 21 Its breath sets coals ablaze, And a flame shoots from its mouth. 22 There is great strength in its neck, And dismay runs before it. 23 The folds of its flesh are tightly joined together; They are firm, as though cast upon it and immovable. 24 Its heart is hard as stone, Yes, hard as a lower millstone. 25 When it rises up, even the mighty are frightened; Its thrashing causes bewilderment. 26 No sword that reaches it will prevail; Nor will spear, dart, or arrowhead. 27 It regards iron as straw, Copper as rotten wood. 28 An arrow does not make it flee; Slingstones turn into stubble against it. 29 It regards a club as stubble, And it laughs at the rattling of a javelin. 30 Underneath, it is like sharp fragments of pottery; It spreads itself in the mud like a threshing sledge. 31It makes the deep boil just like a pot; It stirs up the sea like an ointment pot. 32 It leaves a glistening wake in its path. One would think that the deep had white hair. 33 There is nothing like it on the earth, A creature made to have no fear. 34 It glares at everything that is haughty. It is king over all the majestic wild beasts.”
Do crocodiles snort out fire and sparks from their nostrils? Do their eyes shine brightly? Does lightning go out of its mouth? is it like a furnace inside, so that its very breath sends a flame that can set coals ablaze? Does it really stir up the deep seas like a cauldron? Looking again at the New World Translation it's hard for me to believe, now, that I ever thought this was a crocodile.
Of course, part of the problem is that Witnesses, like many fundamentalist religions, too, do not want to see "fabulous" creatures in the Bible. It opens up the Bible to ridicule if it refers to "real" dragons and unicorns and beasts that seem never to have existed. Yet the idea appears even more "fabulous" if we read from some other translations, or more especially, the "Septuagint" LXX era translations, which would have been based on Hebrew manuscripts from as early as 400 BCE, rather than the NWT which is based on Hebrew manuscripts from as late as 1100 CE.
Here are some of the quotes from Job in the LXX: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/28-iob-nets.pdf
Job 40:15-23 But look now you are familiar with "monsters" [Behemoth]; they eat grass like cows. Look now its strength is in its loins, and its power in its belly's navel. It stood up its tail like a cypress, and its sinews have been interwoven. Its flanks are flanks of copper, and its spine is cast iron. . . . This is the chief of what the Lord created, made to be mocked at by his angels. But when it went up on a steep mountain, it brought its gladness to the quadrupeds in Tartarus. . . . If there is a flood, it will never take notice. {*It trusts that the Jordan will tumble into its mouth.}
Job 40:25-41:26 [Masoretic 41:1-34] And will you catch a dragon [Leviathan] with a fish hook? . . . And do nations feed on it, and do the Phoenician races divvy it up? And a whole fleet, gathered, cannot carry the mere skin of its tail. {and its head in fisherman's boats}. But you will lay a hand on it, though you remember the battle that is waging in its body, and let it happen no more! . . . Who will uncover the front of what it is wearing? And who could enter the plate of its cuirass? Who will open the gates of its face? Fear is all around its teeth. Its inwards are bronze shields. . . . Light shines forth at its sneezing and its eyes have the look of the morning star. From its mouth proceed flaming torches, and fiery braziers are being cast forth. From its nostrils smoke of a furnace burning with the fire of coals. Its soul is coals, and a flame proceeds from its mouth. . . . Its heart is solid like stone, and it stands like an unyielding anvil. . . . It makes the deep boil like a caldron and regards the sea as a pot of ointment and Tartarus of the deep as a captive. . . . There is nothing else on earth like it, made to be mocked at by my angels. Everything high it sees, and it is king over all that are in the waters.
The basic idea remains in modern translations, but there is some evidence that the Masoretic text (which the NWT is based upon) has often cleaned up what was thought to be embarrassing to medieval rabbis in the intervening centuries. The references to "Tartarus" [see Greek mythology] are curious, especially due to 2 Peter 2:4. But the additional references to Leviathan in the Hebrew Scriptures are just as striking.

Jehovah God, the Father, calls. And so does Jesus. No contradiction. Because, in will and purpose --even though the Father is greater-- Jehovah and Jesus are the same. ("I and the Father are one"). The "call" in this case is a "command" which results in the effect of raising the dead to life. It is the simultaneous purpose of both Jehovah and Jesus to effect this resurrection and judgment. This may sound contrived and convoluted, but notice that this is the exact same explanation Jesus gives in John chapter 6:
(John 6:38-40) 38 for I have come down from heaven to do, not my own will, but the will of him who sent me. 39 This is the will of him who sent me . . . . that I should resurrect them on the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who recognizes the Son and exercises faith in him should have everlasting life, and I will resurrect him on the last day.”
(1 Thessalonians 4:15, 16) 15 For this is what we tell you by Jehovah’s word, that we the living who survive to the presence of the Lord will in no way precede those who have fallen asleep in death; 16 because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first.
(Philippians 3:14) 14 I am pressing on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God by means of Christ Jesus.
 
 
 

@BroRando, If you are a Witness you should really take this matter up with the Watchtower Society / the Branch / the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses.
The idea has come up before and the Watchtower explained that it is people who are unfamiliar with Greek who believe as you do. The Watchtower explains that it is nearly the opposite of the way you have tried to explain it. I'll highlight some of that Watchtower article for those who are interested in the Biblical and grammatical evidence:
*** w77 5/15 p. 319 Questions From Readers ***
To a person unfamiliar with the Greek language it might seem that there is a significance indicated by the fact that first the word is spelled theon and next theos. But the difference is simply a matter of complying with the Greek grammatical case used.
John 1:1 reads: “In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God [τὸν θεὸν, literally, the god], and the Word was a god [θεὸς].”
Greek has five cases—nominative, genitive, dative, accusative and vocative. How a word is spelled can vary depending on the case in which it is used. Take, as an example, the definite article “the.” In the masculine gender “the” is respectively written in the first four of these cases: ὁ, τοῦ, τῷ, τὸν, in the singular number.
Similarly, in John 1:1 the word theos is spelled in accord with the particular case being employed. In the first instance (“the Word was with God”) it is in the accusative case and thus is spelled θεὸν But in the second occurrence it is in the nominative case, and so it is spelled θεὸς. The spelling of theos does not of itself indicate the person or position of the one designated, as 2 Corinthians 4:4, 6 illustrates. In verse four Satan is identified as θεὸς, “the god of this system of things,” and in verse six the Creator is designated θεὸς. The spelling is theos in both verses, for the nominative case is used in each. So the fact that theos is spelled differently in its two occurrences in John 1:1 does not show any difference in meaning; “god” is the meaning in both instances.
You believe the Watchtower is wrong here, and I agree with the Watchtower here. Your argument is with the Watchtower. Ask them about it and you can just tell us what they said when you told them they were wrong.

Ascended??     Greek word has a connotation of lowly service - walking through the dust.
 
 
"dakonos

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.
 

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

I get it. But it was very possible to read what you had written about Korah and tie it, in principle, to the actions of the Governing Body in presenting themselves as "the sole channel." Reading your words very literally could give the impression that the Governing Body was like Korah in the sense that they were not satisfied with the idea that Jesus alone is the "sole channel." It was not clear where the "sadness" came from when you said: "Sadly, the real rub here is around the fact that the Governing Body has presented themselves as "the faithful and discreet slave", the sole channel for the dispensing of spiritual food in these last days."
I understand that you have not changed your previously expressed opinions about this, and that you are here clarifying that you believe the Governing Body is the "sole channel." Still, I think that we should admit that there are a lot of weaknesses in this position from a Biblical standpoint. One obvious weakness was that, for well nigh 100 years, this idea was never known to the persons who now claim that they were that "sole channel." All those years, this supposed "sole channel" didn't know who they were until just a few months ago, and had therefore been teaching incorrect doctrine about who the "faithful slave" was for these last "100 years."
As you said, it was a "principal aspect" of this shepherding arrangement, and yet the "sole channel" couldn't teach the correct doctrine about a supposed "principal aspect."
For me, Jesus is the sole channel, and the Governing Body is simply a body of elders making the types of decisions that elders should make over a congregation. In this case it's not a specific local congregation, but the collection of all congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses, i.e., the overall congregation. Paul could have stayed in a specific, local congregation and remained a part of its body of elders, but his ministry called for a different kind of "shepherding" over many congregations, and this often presented the need to make logistical arrangements for his own travels and the appointment of others to travel to these congregations. He often had to make corrections either in writing or in person that were sometimes doctrinal in nature, sometimes financial, and sometimes dealing with "personnel" and personality conflicts. Overall, his purpose toward the overall congregation was the same as elders who presided over local congregations: encouragement, practical application of Jehovah's principles, preaching the good news about Jesus and his heavenly kingdom, and taking the lead by setting a good example for others.
So, as I've said before, I see a lot of value in a body of elders who take on this type of leadership responsibility toward the congregation overall. Elders are appointed for both their personal qualifications and, of course, their spiritual qualifications. By their examples they are leading us, and we should be obedient to that example -- just the same as we look to elders as examples in the local congregation. But there is nothing in the Bible about the body of elders who serve the overall congregation determining doctrines and teachings for the other congregations. I know that people will quickly point to the council at Jerusalem found in Acts 15, but this could very nearly prove the opposite point, as Paul seems to point out in Galatians, and as Fred Franz pointed out in a talk he gave back in 1975. (Ironically, Franz was the most respected member of this "sole channel" at the time when he argued against our current view of the "Governing Body.")
I believe that the Bible clearly proves that this slave is made up of the entire body of Christians. Therefore in the Biblical sense of the "slave" I would agree with what you just said, although I prefer an adjustment to the last portion of what you said here, though. During the days of Paul and the Jerusalem council, the holy spirit had not yet produced what we now know as the completed Christian Greek Scriptures, or New Testament. I think that the very purpose of building on a foundation of apostles and prophets from the first century was to produce inspired writings that reveal to us the "spirit of Christ." The Bible (Jehovah's Word, and through it, "the spirit of Christ") is intervening and directing the congregation at all times, not merely when absolutely necessary. 
The many proofs that, in the last days, all Christians are supposed to be "the faithful slave" or "faithful steward" are found throughout the scriptures. Here's one that gets right to the point.
(1 Peter 4:7-11) 7 But the end of all things has drawn close. Be sound in mind, therefore, and be vigilant with a view to prayers. 8 Above all things, have intense love for one another, because love covers a multitude of sins. 9 Be hospitable to one another without grumbling. 10 In proportion as each one has received a gift, use it in ministering to one another as fine stewards of God’s undeserved kindness expressed in various ways. 11 If anyone speaks, [let him speak] as it were [the] sacred pronouncements of God; if anyone ministers, [let him minister] as dependent on the strength that God supplies. . .
A separate point in the above quote from 1 Peter is that all of us are responsible to serve "spiritual food" in the sense that all of us are to speak as if we are responsible for the sacred pronouncements of God. Never is there a hint that we are dependent on any group of men for these pronouncements.
(Galatians 6:2-6) 2 Go on carrying the burdens of one another, and in this way you will fulfill the law of the Christ. 3 For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he is deceiving himself. 4 But let each one examine his own actions, and then he will have cause for rejoicing in regard to himself alone, and not in comparison with the other person. 5 For each one will carry his own load. 6 Moreover, let anyone who is being taught the word share in all good things with the one who gives such teaching.
Therefore, anyone who gives teaching is merely sharing with all the others who give teaching. No one should believe that our (or their) particular teaching is something that another person should "bear." That would be the same as thinking that our teaching carries with it some "authority" when all authority was given to Christ. If any of us thinks that our authority, or the authority of our particular teaching should in any way "govern" another person, then we have done exactly what Jesus warned against when he gave a parable about a faithful slave who 'lords it over' his fellow slaves.
Therefore, I think that the parable of the faithful slave itself is another good place where we find evidence that there should never be any kind of "Governing Body" trying to identify itself as "the faithful and discreet slave." Any attempt to make such an identification is unfaithful and indiscreet. It's exactly that kind of presumptuousness that Jesus spoke of when he said:
(Matthew 23:6-12) . . . . 6 They like the most prominent place at evening meals and the front seats in the synagogues 7 and the greetings in the marketplaces and to be called Rabbi by men. 8 But you, do not you be called Rabbi, for one is your Teacher, and all of you are brothers. 9 Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One. 10 Neither be called leaders, for your Leader is one, the Christ. 11 But the greatest one among you must be your minister. 12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
The specific example that Jesus was using here were the Scribes and Pharisees, about whom Jesus said had done the following:
(Matthew 23:2) “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the seat of Moses."
The Jewish legal system was understood in Jesus' day to have a need for such persons in the "seat of Moses." But the Christian system was to be different. There would be no "seat of Moses" because all of us would be servants to one another. There would be no governing leader except one, the Christ. It was this Biblical rationale, of course, that led me to think that perhaps you really had realized where the "sadness" came from in your reference to Numbers 16, where Korah and others had wanted to put themselves in the seat of Moses, so that they could count themselves in that "sole channel."

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

This has nothing to do with the methods of obtaining confessions by the elders. I have only rarely heard of these methods being problematic. The spreadsheet indicates that only 58% of the alleged perpetrators made a clear confession.
I am saying only that at least 290 of those 579 reported confessions (50.1%) were not volunteered to a judicial committee due to remorse that followed soon after the sin/crime. These confessions happened most times after SEVERAL YEARS.
Imagine sitting in the same Kingdom Hall (or Book Study home) where your victim is also sitting and continuing to go on for years without ever admitting your crime. Or knowing that your crime has caused that person to leave the Organization and still not being bothered enough to confess until after an accusation is made years later and a judicial hearing is called. Imagine being in the same household pretending to be the spiritual head of the household in front of your wife and children knowing that you are abusing those same children, time after time, in some cases.
The most obvious cases where the perpetrator confessed, but not voluntarily, would be the 257 of those confessions that occurred after MULTIPLE children were abused by them. (I removed all the cases with just 1 victim or an Unclear number of victims.) With some of them, it was actually 10 or more children abused and their first abuse occurred when they were baptized publishers. For two others they began abusing when they were Ministerial Servants and still went on to abuse at least 10 victims each. With some elders, it was only after 2 or 3 or 5 or even 7 accusations that they finally confessed. Although they may have "voluntarily" confessed years later, i don't see this as a voluntary confession. No one is supposed to accept an appointment to be an elder without confessing to such crimes/sins that began after they were baptized.
With 44 alleged perpetrators where the confession was labeled "Unclear," these also had been accused of abusing MULTIPLE children. These 301 alone (257+44) )already puts us into the definition of MOST.
In all these cases the confession was about abusing at least ONE of the MULTIPLE children referred to in the accusation.
Even though this already covers enough of the numbers required to speak of MOST being involuntary there is a large number of additional cases which are based simply on the fact that there was no judicial hearing until years after the initial accusation of abuse. For these, of course, I removed those perpetrators whose first abuse was as a Non-Witness.
I should have mentioned before that I don't consider it a "voluntary" confession if a person waits years to confess it, or has continued to abuse MULTIPLE children before that confession. Even if just one child was abused, I think that waiting years until confessing at a judicial hearing (especially only after an accusation is made) doesn't count as voluntary.

Yes. All of them are correct according to the spreadsheet. 1700+ means 1700 or more. If the actual number was 2,222 then 1700-plus is correct. We KNOW that the spreadsheet represents investigations that resulted in a total of at least 1,857 alleged victims. So 1,857+ is also correct.
I think that's completely false, according to everything I've read including what the Watchtower publications have said about CSA. I think that if there were 1,006 cases in the case file and law enforcement had not been able to charge any one of the persons within those case files, the number of alleged perpetrators would still be 1,006. In fact, if all 1,006 alleged perpetrators were investigated by law enforcement, and they were unable to find legal means to charge any one of those persons, there would still be 1,006 alleged perpetrators. There is a huge difference between being unable to charge and being able to fully exonerate someone who was falsely accused.
But the truth is that it is very hard to charge someone with such a crime because such crimes are notoriously difficult to find prosecutable evidence for, except when the victim went to authorities immediately after the crime, and children do not typically do this. It's not found among these cases (I hope) but even cases where the girl claims rape and ends up pregnant have been dropped as unprosecutable. 
I agree. That was exactly my point. It's why I just asked you the same question about how one might go about disfellowshipping a non-Witness. You can't DIS-fellowship someone who was not "fellowshipped" to begin with. This is why no one can make a big deal out of the fact that several persons on the list were listed as NON-Witnesses at the time of their first accusation of CSA. These persons could NOT have been NON-Witnesses at the time of their disfellowshipping. Therefore, these persons (some of them) were Witnesses at the time they were listed on this sheet as elders and ministerial servants, for example, but NOT Witnesses at the time of their first CSA accusation.

It's easy enough to check whether those numbers of 1,766+ and 1,857+ were right. Using your suggestion that "Unclear" should be equal to 1, I changed ALL the "Unclear" to 1 and tried the total again.
I got 1,766 again. What do you think you would get?

Next, I fixed ALL the cells with "10+" in them. I still get 1,857. What do you think I did wrong? What would you do to make it more accurate?

I'm not defending the text that ChatGPT derived, but it's still a true statement -- even without any reference to what the situation is in other countries. But you should keep in mind that the Witness organization also reaches out to prisons and to former criminals, and other persons who have issues. Jesus said that it was the "sick" that came to him, not those who considered themselves healthy. And then there is the fact that crimes, including rape and murder, come ultimately from human sinful nature.
(James 1:14, 15) . . .But each one is tried by being drawn out and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then the desire, when it has become fertile, gives birth to sin; in turn sin, when it has been carried out, brings forth death.
(James 2:11) . . .For the one who said, “You must not commit adultery,” also said, “You must not murder.” If, now, you do not commit adultery but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of law.
Imagine! A need to write to congregations to remind them that it is not OK to murder!