JW Insider

The small problem with this statement is easy to detect, and I'm sure you saw it, too.
It appears to claim that if "some" direction was given that was not in harmony with God's word, then "all of Jehovah's Witnesses" would notice. This has never, ever been true! Every time "some" change is made to a doctrine (and there have been literally hundreds of such changes) then the GB made this change because it was important to be in more complete harmony with God's word. In other words, if the change was made for the new teaching to be in harmony with God's word, then the previous teaching was not in complete harmony with God's word.
Yet, there has never been a case where more than a very few Jehovah's Witnesses spoke up, often none at all, as far as anyone knew. Back in the days when we were more attuned to anxiously await the latest "new light" from the yearly convention, the comments were always about how pleasantly surprised everyone was. No Witnesses are ever asked by the Governing Body what they think of a new doctrine and almost no Witnesses would dare say anything except that they agree completely, and that it was surely "food at the proper time." This is true, even though many of those items of "new truth" that we learned at all the assemblies in my formative years have been nearly scrapped, from "Your Will Be Done on Earth" [King of North/South, antimatter, fear of Sputnik] "Let Your Name Be Sanctified" [type-antitype Elijah as "Rutherford" and Elisha as "Knorr"] to "Babylon the Great Has Fallen" [Revelation "commentary" where almost half the paragraphs are already out of date].
I remember some of the adjustments, and wrong ideas over the years have been explained as "the right thing at the wrong time" or even once as "the wrong thing at the right time." [e.g., "superior authorities" of Romans 13]. Yet, it is always "food at the proper time" as far as perhaps 99% of us are concerned. 
But that's not the biggest problem with the claim. If it were true that even "some" wrong direction were easily detected by "all" then there is no need for a special "slave class" to present doctrines. If Brother Jackson is right, then it would be better to start from scratch and vote on each doctrine democratically.
This is not a complaint about the spiritual food we receive, and it's true that the specific menu of doctrines we enjoy is fulfilling and satisfies our spiritual needs. Over the years, however, much of it has proven to have been served at the wrong time, or it was the wrong thing. Some has even been toxic and resulted in spiritual death and loss of spiritual health for many. And we now have evidence that some of it has been kept toxic on purpose for many years because the servers didn't want to admit that it was bad food, even though the GB knew it was. (For example: The directions given on handing pedophilia cases for many years, corporal punishment of children, how a sister should respond to a physically abusive husband, chronological end-times speculation.)
I think most of these things have been corrected, or are in the process of further correction. But I don't blame the bad food on the "faithful and discreet slave" because I don't believe that this parable was a prophecy in the first place. For the most part the "spiritual food" served is wonderful. Where it is wrong it is usually corrected with something that is obviously better. But where someone digs in their heels and holds to false doctrine because of a tradition or inability to admit that it might have been wrong, this is not about an appointed "slave" proving themselves to be an "evil" slave, it's just the common human tendency of people who are looked up to as leaders to become like the Pharisees, and see themselves as more important or righteous. Teachers receive heavier judgment.
That's really the reason for the parable, anyway, as far as I can tell. It's so that a person who takes on the leadership position of Brother Jackson, for example, doesn't forget that he should be in subjection to you, Anna, and that he should be willing to give a literal drink of water to you or visit you when you are physically sick, or give you some actual physical food to eat if you are hungry.  And the parable was also meant to remind you, Anna, not to forget that you should be in subjection to Brother Jackson, and not be quick to judge him harshly even if you see that he has taken a false step. We should try to build each other up with patience and discretion and faithfulness, picking each other up as best we can, and trying to understand each others' mental, emotional, physical and spiritual needs so that we can be an encouragement to each other. As the "day" continues to draw near, we want to show love toward one another, so that all of us continue awaiting Jesus "parousia" without unnecessary distraction from the world and its desires. The point of the parable is that if the Master is away it's easy to lose faith, but by building our congregations up into a family of brothers and sisters who look out for each other with love, we will not be tempted to lose faith in the promise, which can result in disobendience to the Master, and being overly concerned about who is right and who isn't, or finding opportunities to "lord it over" our fellow servants.

You make your point based on rejection of 1914 as the beginning of the "parousia" and Jesus' reign as king. I also can't see how that idea fits the Biblical references to the parousia. But I believe Jesus was already enthroned much earlier, so it doesn't matter what happened specifically in 1914. Jesus WAS king in 1914 because he had already been raised up much earlier as the Davidic Messiah.
I noticed an earlier comment you made elsewhere where you reject the idea that Jesus became king when he sat down at the right hand of majesty. I understand that there are different ways to interpret "kingship" and "authority." But it's still a legitimate interpretation that Jesus already held his position as "king of kings and lord of lords" because he was given "all authority" at that time including a name which was above all rulers and principalities whether they be in heaven or on earth. Hebrews says that he had a crown at this time, a sceptre at this time, and a throne at this time, and that he was already of the order of Melchizedek who was both king and priest at the same time.
Revelation calls Jesus the "ruler of the kings of the earth." Paul shows that when Psalm 110 used the expression "sit at my right hand" that one should interpret that phrase as "rule as king." 
For Christ must reign [as King] until He has put all His enemies under His feet.
The examples of Jewish persons who worked for and supported gentile governments is not necessarily seen again in Christian times, where Christians owed their citizenship to the heavens and believed they were just temporary residents in this world.

I have no desire to get drawn into a conversation about what happened in Malawi, but I would say that (in my opinion) there was nothing wrong with the Watchtower's policy about not purchasing the political party card in Malawi. It was not the fault of the Watchtower that the government in Malawi pushed an agenda of extreme and vicious persecution upon good citizens of Malawi just because they had sound religious reasons not to purchase a political party card.

First of all. Thanks for the sentiments in the previous post. I don't plan to focus much on things said here anymore, so you're right that it isn't really going to matter much whether those details about 2016 are explained to me or not. 
I've read what the editors of "DTIB" have said about genealogy and it's easy to understand. I also understand what it says about "generations" in those pages you referenced and in other parts of this same "Bible Dictionary." Also, I know that if someone did a search on the term "overlapping generations" among all the Bible commentaries and Bible dictionaries, the term almost never comes up at all except in this particular one: "Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible" (DTIB). And it only happens on page 244, the first page you quoted. Yes, it's "cool" and "unique" that someone can find a person with academic credentials who used the term "overlapping generations" but its very use here undermines the Watchtower teaching instead of helping to support it.
The problem, of course, is that the editor you recommended here (pp. 244-246), doesn't really believe the Bible's genealogies are trustworthy and accurate as actual genealogies. He prefers to see many of them as unhistorical. But that's typical of modern critical commentaries. However, he quotes Rendsburg who actually does argue that the genealogies of the Pentateuch are reliable and historical. And in that paragraph, he uses the phrase: "overlapping generations." He says that:
Rendsburg "has based his conclusions in part on the observable pattern of overlapping generations so that people of the same age need not be of the same generation."
But it's quite easy to see that this goes completely against what the Watchtower publications have tried to say about generations. In fact, it directly opposes what the Watchtower publications say.
The Watchtower publications NEVER use the expression "overlapping generations" with respect to the generation teaching, because our current teaching is the opposite. Our teaching is that even persons of widely different ages NEED to be part of the SAME GENERATION because Jesus said that "THIS GENERATION" (not "these generations") would not pass away. Our current teaching is that almost all of the people in the first part of the generation do not need to have their lives overlap with most of the people in the second part of that same generation. In fact, our current teaching is supposed to work out even if only ONE person among the thousands in that first part has a lifespan that overlaps with at least ONE person in the second part of that SAME generation. The infamous Splane chart even mentions the possibility that this ONE person might be, using a known example: Brother Frederick W. Franz. If FWF was indeed the last living person from the first group, then his lifespan, in the end, would only need to have overlapped with ONE remaining person from the second part of that same generation by the time the end of this system arrives. Our definition of the current teaching could allow for this even if that overlap had happened for only a few seconds and the overlapping person in the second group had never met or even known about FWF while FWF was alive. And then, by definition, this ONE GENERATION Jesus spoke of can only go on for as long as at least that ONE person from the second group, is still alive.
That might sound complex and I'm using an extreme example. But it's an example that fits the current teaching.
I'm personally not too concerned with whether this teaching is going to hold true, time-wise. It very well might. If it does, I don't think it's necessary that it was because the teaching was right. It could just be a coincidence if the end of this system comes tomorrow.
One reason I'm not too concerned is just based on the very nature of speculative teachings. If the teaching is now correct, then this means that it is the "truth." Yet, if someone believed and promoted this "truth" back in 2004, for example, then it would have been an apostate teaching at that time. Speculative teachings are always this way: they could be an apostate teaching, then a true teaching, then they might become an apostate teaching again in the near future.
I'm not saying the Watchtower is wrong. But I'm not personally concerned with our more speculative teachings. And this one is the kind that creates a range of dates, which, to my conscience, goes against what Jesus and Paul said about not needing anything to be written to us about the times and seasons. These things are in the Father's jurisdiction, not ours.
We should be more concerned with what type of person we ought to be knowing that the end could come at any time.

First of all. Thanks for the sentiments in the previous post. I don't plan to focus much on things said here anymore, so you're right that it isn't really going to matter much whether those details about 2016 are explained to me or not. 
I've read what the editors of "DTIB" have said about genealogy and it's easy to understand. I also understand what it says about "generations" in those pages you referenced and in other parts of this same "Bible Dictionary." Also, I know that if someone did a search on the term "overlapping generations" among all the Bible commentaries and Bible dictionaries, the term almost never comes up at all except in this particular one: "Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible" (DTIB). And it only happens on page 244, the first page you quoted. Yes, it's "cool" and "unique" that someone can find a person with academic credentials who used the term "overlapping generations" but its very use here undermines the Watchtower teaching instead of helping to support it.
The problem, of course, is that the editor you recommended here (pp. 244-246), doesn't really believe the Bible's genealogies are trustworthy and accurate as actual genealogies. He prefers to see many of them as unhistorical. But that's typical of modern critical commentaries. However, he quotes Rendsburg who actually does argue that the genealogies of the Pentateuch are reliable and historical. And in that paragraph, he uses the phrase: "overlapping generations." He says that:
Rendsburg "has based his conclusions in part on the observable pattern of overlapping generations so that people of the same age need not be of the same generation."
But it's quite easy to see that this goes completely against what the Watchtower publications have tried to say about generations. In fact, it directly opposes what the Watchtower publications say.
The Watchtower publications NEVER use the expression "overlapping generations" with respect to the generation teaching, because our current teaching is the opposite. Our teaching is that even persons of widely different ages NEED to be part of the SAME GENERATION because Jesus said that "THIS GENERATION" (not "these generations") would not pass away. Our current teaching is that almost all of the people in the first part of the generation do not need to have their lives overlap with most of the people in the second part of that same generation. In fact, our current teaching is supposed to work out even if only ONE person among the thousands in that first part has a lifespan that overlaps with at least ONE person in the second part of that SAME generation. The infamous Splane chart even mentions the possibility that this ONE person might be, using a known example: Brother Frederick W. Franz. If FWF was indeed the last living person from the first group, then his lifespan, in the end, would only need to have overlapped with ONE remaining person from the second part of that same generation by the time the end of this system arrives. Our definition of the current teaching could allow for this even if that overlap had happened for only a few seconds and the overlapping person in the second group had never met or even known about FWF while FWF was alive. And then, by definition, this ONE GENERATION Jesus spoke of can only go on for as long as at least that ONE person from the second group, is still alive.
That might sound complex and I'm using an extreme example. But it's an example that fits the current teaching.
I'm personally not too concerned with whether this teaching is going to hold true, time-wise. It very well might. If it does, I don't think it's necessary that it was because the teaching was right. It could just be a coincidence if the end of this system comes tomorrow.
One reason I'm not too concerned is just based on the very nature of speculative teachings. If the teaching is now correct, then this means that it is the "truth." Yet, if someone believed and promoted this "truth" back in 2004, for example, then it would have been an apostate teaching at that time. Speculative teachings are always this way: they could be an apostate teaching, then a true teaching, then they might become an apostate teaching again in the near future.
I'm not saying the Watchtower is wrong. But I'm not personally concerned with our more speculative teachings. And this one is the kind that creates a range of dates, which, to my conscience, goes against what Jesus and Paul said about not needing anything to be written to us about the times and seasons. These things are in the Father's jurisdiction, not ours.
We should be more concerned with what type of person we ought to be knowing that the end could come at any time.

First of all. Thanks for the sentiments in the previous post. I don't plan to focus much on things said here anymore, so you're right that it isn't really going to matter much whether those details about 2016 are explained to me or not. 
I've read what the editors of "DTIB" have said about genealogy and it's easy to understand. I also understand what it says about "generations" in those pages you referenced and in other parts of this same "Bible Dictionary." Also, I know that if someone did a search on the term "overlapping generations" among all the Bible commentaries and Bible dictionaries, the term almost never comes up at all except in this particular one: "Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible" (DTIB). And it only happens on page 244, the first page you quoted. Yes, it's "cool" and "unique" that someone can find a person with academic credentials who used the term "overlapping generations" but its very use here undermines the Watchtower teaching instead of helping to support it.
The problem, of course, is that the editor you recommended here (pp. 244-246), doesn't really believe the Bible's genealogies are trustworthy and accurate as actual genealogies. He prefers to see many of them as unhistorical. But that's typical of modern critical commentaries. However, he quotes Rendsburg who actually does argue that the genealogies of the Pentateuch are reliable and historical. And in that paragraph, he uses the phrase: "overlapping generations." He says that:
Rendsburg "has based his conclusions in part on the observable pattern of overlapping generations so that people of the same age need not be of the same generation."
But it's quite easy to see that this goes completely against what the Watchtower publications have tried to say about generations. In fact, it directly opposes what the Watchtower publications say.
The Watchtower publications NEVER use the expression "overlapping generations" with respect to the generation teaching, because our current teaching is the opposite. Our teaching is that even persons of widely different ages NEED to be part of the SAME GENERATION because Jesus said that "THIS GENERATION" (not "these generations") would not pass away. Our current teaching is that almost all of the people in the first part of the generation do not need to have their lives overlap with most of the people in the second part of that same generation. In fact, our current teaching is supposed to work out even if only ONE person among the thousands in that first part has a lifespan that overlaps with at least ONE person in the second part of that SAME generation. The infamous Splane chart even mentions the possibility that this ONE person might be, using a known example: Brother Frederick W. Franz. If FWF was indeed the last living person from the first group, then his lifespan, in the end, would only need to have overlapped with ONE remaining person from the second part of that same generation by the time the end of this system arrives. Our definition of the current teaching could allow for this even if that overlap had happened for only a few seconds and the overlapping person in the second group had never met or even known about FWF while FWF was alive. And then, by definition, this ONE GENERATION Jesus spoke of can only go on for as long as at least that ONE person from the second group, is still alive.
That might sound complex and I'm using an extreme example. But it's an example that fits the current teaching.
I'm personally not too concerned with whether this teaching is going to hold true, time-wise. It very well might. If it does, I don't think it's necessary that it was because the teaching was right. It could just be a coincidence if the end of this system comes tomorrow.
One reason I'm not too concerned is just based on the very nature of speculative teachings. If the teaching is now correct, then this means that it is the "truth." Yet, if someone believed and promoted this "truth" back in 2004, for example, then it would have been an apostate teaching at that time. Speculative teachings are always this way: they could be an apostate teaching, then a true teaching, then they might become an apostate teaching again in the near future.
I'm not saying the Watchtower is wrong. But I'm not personally concerned with our more speculative teachings. And this one is the kind that creates a range of dates, which, to my conscience, goes against what Jesus and Paul said about not needing anything to be written to us about the times and seasons. These things are in the Father's jurisdiction, not ours.
We should be more concerned with what type of person we ought to be knowing that the end could come at any time.

I probably haven't kept up enough with things being said recently, so I don't really know what you're asking about.
A few months ago, I always tried to read almost everything that everyone would write on this forum. I did this for a few years here but decided it was a bit excessive even though this forum is relatively small. I have read only a very small percentage of posts for about two months now. So I don't really know what you are talking about when you ask if I and BroRando did the numbers. I don't know anything about the significance of 2016 or the "Alpha Generation." I've read that the Alpha generation refers to people born after the year 2000, who are therefore currently about 23 years old or less. I don't recall reading anything from BroRando about 2016 or the Alpha Generation.
I am hopeful that the end of this wicked system comes soon, but I have never believed in trying to tie the future fulfillment of prophecies to specific dates. I'd go so far as to say it's unchristian to get overly involved in such speculation about the times and seasons. But I do understand the desire to peer into such things and always want to learn more about the fulfillment of prophecy. I'm intrigued about whatever you mean about me "doing the numbers" "2016" "Alpha Generation" and whatever you meant by my "reference." I'm sure I didn't refer to any of those things, so I wondered what you meant by that. 

First of all. Thanks for the sentiments in the previous post. I don't plan to focus much on things said here anymore, so you're right that it isn't really going to matter much whether those details about 2016 are explained to me or not. 
I've read what the editors of "DTIB" have said about genealogy and it's easy to understand. I also understand what it says about "generations" in those pages you referenced and in other parts of this same "Bible Dictionary." Also, I know that if someone did a search on the term "overlapping generations" among all the Bible commentaries and Bible dictionaries, the term almost never comes up at all except in this particular one: "Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible" (DTIB). And it only happens on page 244, the first page you quoted. Yes, it's "cool" and "unique" that someone can find a person with academic credentials who used the term "overlapping generations" but its very use here undermines the Watchtower teaching instead of helping to support it.
The problem, of course, is that the editor you recommended here (pp. 244-246), doesn't really believe the Bible's genealogies are trustworthy and accurate as actual genealogies. He prefers to see many of them as unhistorical. But that's typical of modern critical commentaries. However, he quotes Rendsburg who actually does argue that the genealogies of the Pentateuch are reliable and historical. And in that paragraph, he uses the phrase: "overlapping generations." He says that:
Rendsburg "has based his conclusions in part on the observable pattern of overlapping generations so that people of the same age need not be of the same generation."
But it's quite easy to see that this goes completely against what the Watchtower publications have tried to say about generations. In fact, it directly opposes what the Watchtower publications say.
The Watchtower publications NEVER use the expression "overlapping generations" with respect to the generation teaching, because our current teaching is the opposite. Our teaching is that even persons of widely different ages NEED to be part of the SAME GENERATION because Jesus said that "THIS GENERATION" (not "these generations") would not pass away. Our current teaching is that almost all of the people in the first part of the generation do not need to have their lives overlap with most of the people in the second part of that same generation. In fact, our current teaching is supposed to work out even if only ONE person among the thousands in that first part has a lifespan that overlaps with at least ONE person in the second part of that SAME generation. The infamous Splane chart even mentions the possibility that this ONE person might be, using a known example: Brother Frederick W. Franz. If FWF was indeed the last living person from the first group, then his lifespan, in the end, would only need to have overlapped with ONE remaining person from the second part of that same generation by the time the end of this system arrives. Our definition of the current teaching could allow for this even if that overlap had happened for only a few seconds and the overlapping person in the second group had never met or even known about FWF while FWF was alive. And then, by definition, this ONE GENERATION Jesus spoke of can only go on for as long as at least that ONE person from the second group, is still alive.
That might sound complex and I'm using an extreme example. But it's an example that fits the current teaching.
I'm personally not too concerned with whether this teaching is going to hold true, time-wise. It very well might. If it does, I don't think it's necessary that it was because the teaching was right. It could just be a coincidence if the end of this system comes tomorrow.
One reason I'm not too concerned is just based on the very nature of speculative teachings. If the teaching is now correct, then this means that it is the "truth." Yet, if someone believed and promoted this "truth" back in 2004, for example, then it would have been an apostate teaching at that time. Speculative teachings are always this way: they could be an apostate teaching, then a true teaching, then they might become an apostate teaching again in the near future.
I'm not saying the Watchtower is wrong. But I'm not personally concerned with our more speculative teachings. And this one is the kind that creates a range of dates, which, to my conscience, goes against what Jesus and Paul said about not needing anything to be written to us about the times and seasons. These things are in the Father's jurisdiction, not ours.
We should be more concerned with what type of person we ought to be knowing that the end could come at any time.

You make your point based on rejection of 1914 as the beginning of the "parousia" and Jesus' reign as king. I also can't see how that idea fits the Biblical references to the parousia. But I believe Jesus was already enthroned much earlier, so it doesn't matter what happened specifically in 1914. Jesus WAS king in 1914 because he had already been raised up much earlier as the Davidic Messiah.
I noticed an earlier comment you made elsewhere where you reject the idea that Jesus became king when he sat down at the right hand of majesty. I understand that there are different ways to interpret "kingship" and "authority." But it's still a legitimate interpretation that Jesus already held his position as "king of kings and lord of lords" because he was given "all authority" at that time including a name which was above all rulers and principalities whether they be in heaven or on earth. Hebrews says that he had a crown at this time, a sceptre at this time, and a throne at this time, and that he was already of the order of Melchizedek who was both king and priest at the same time.
Revelation calls Jesus the "ruler of the kings of the earth." Paul shows that when Psalm 110 used the expression "sit at my right hand" that one should interpret that phrase as "rule as king." 
For Christ must reign [as King] until He has put all His enemies under His feet.
The examples of Jewish persons who worked for and supported gentile governments is not necessarily seen again in Christian times, where Christians owed their citizenship to the heavens and believed they were just temporary residents in this world.

First of all. Thanks for the sentiments in the previous post. I don't plan to focus much on things said here anymore, so you're right that it isn't really going to matter much whether those details about 2016 are explained to me or not. 
I've read what the editors of "DTIB" have said about genealogy and it's easy to understand. I also understand what it says about "generations" in those pages you referenced and in other parts of this same "Bible Dictionary." Also, I know that if someone did a search on the term "overlapping generations" among all the Bible commentaries and Bible dictionaries, the term almost never comes up at all except in this particular one: "Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible" (DTIB). And it only happens on page 244, the first page you quoted. Yes, it's "cool" and "unique" that someone can find a person with academic credentials who used the term "overlapping generations" but its very use here undermines the Watchtower teaching instead of helping to support it.
The problem, of course, is that the editor you recommended here (pp. 244-246), doesn't really believe the Bible's genealogies are trustworthy and accurate as actual genealogies. He prefers to see many of them as unhistorical. But that's typical of modern critical commentaries. However, he quotes Rendsburg who actually does argue that the genealogies of the Pentateuch are reliable and historical. And in that paragraph, he uses the phrase: "overlapping generations." He says that:
Rendsburg "has based his conclusions in part on the observable pattern of overlapping generations so that people of the same age need not be of the same generation."
But it's quite easy to see that this goes completely against what the Watchtower publications have tried to say about generations. In fact, it directly opposes what the Watchtower publications say.
The Watchtower publications NEVER use the expression "overlapping generations" with respect to the generation teaching, because our current teaching is the opposite. Our teaching is that even persons of widely different ages NEED to be part of the SAME GENERATION because Jesus said that "THIS GENERATION" (not "these generations") would not pass away. Our current teaching is that almost all of the people in the first part of the generation do not need to have their lives overlap with most of the people in the second part of that same generation. In fact, our current teaching is supposed to work out even if only ONE person among the thousands in that first part has a lifespan that overlaps with at least ONE person in the second part of that SAME generation. The infamous Splane chart even mentions the possibility that this ONE person might be, using a known example: Brother Frederick W. Franz. If FWF was indeed the last living person from the first group, then his lifespan, in the end, would only need to have overlapped with ONE remaining person from the second part of that same generation by the time the end of this system arrives. Our definition of the current teaching could allow for this even if that overlap had happened for only a few seconds and the overlapping person in the second group had never met or even known about FWF while FWF was alive. And then, by definition, this ONE GENERATION Jesus spoke of can only go on for as long as at least that ONE person from the second group, is still alive.
That might sound complex and I'm using an extreme example. But it's an example that fits the current teaching.
I'm personally not too concerned with whether this teaching is going to hold true, time-wise. It very well might. If it does, I don't think it's necessary that it was because the teaching was right. It could just be a coincidence if the end of this system comes tomorrow.
One reason I'm not too concerned is just based on the very nature of speculative teachings. If the teaching is now correct, then this means that it is the "truth." Yet, if someone believed and promoted this "truth" back in 2004, for example, then it would have been an apostate teaching at that time. Speculative teachings are always this way: they could be an apostate teaching, then a true teaching, then they might become an apostate teaching again in the near future.
I'm not saying the Watchtower is wrong. But I'm not personally concerned with our more speculative teachings. And this one is the kind that creates a range of dates, which, to my conscience, goes against what Jesus and Paul said about not needing anything to be written to us about the times and seasons. These things are in the Father's jurisdiction, not ours.
We should be more concerned with what type of person we ought to be knowing that the end could come at any time.

You make your point based on rejection of 1914 as the beginning of the "parousia" and Jesus' reign as king. I also can't see how that idea fits the Biblical references to the parousia. But I believe Jesus was already enthroned much earlier, so it doesn't matter what happened specifically in 1914. Jesus WAS king in 1914 because he had already been raised up much earlier as the Davidic Messiah.
I noticed an earlier comment you made elsewhere where you reject the idea that Jesus became king when he sat down at the right hand of majesty. I understand that there are different ways to interpret "kingship" and "authority." But it's still a legitimate interpretation that Jesus already held his position as "king of kings and lord of lords" because he was given "all authority" at that time including a name which was above all rulers and principalities whether they be in heaven or on earth. Hebrews says that he had a crown at this time, a sceptre at this time, and a throne at this time, and that he was already of the order of Melchizedek who was both king and priest at the same time.
Revelation calls Jesus the "ruler of the kings of the earth." Paul shows that when Psalm 110 used the expression "sit at my right hand" that one should interpret that phrase as "rule as king." 
For Christ must reign [as King] until He has put all His enemies under His feet.
The examples of Jewish persons who worked for and supported gentile governments is not necessarily seen again in Christian times, where Christians owed their citizenship to the heavens and believed they were just temporary residents in this world.

I have no desire to get drawn into a conversation about what happened in Malawi, but I would say that (in my opinion) there was nothing wrong with the Watchtower's policy about not purchasing the political party card in Malawi. It was not the fault of the Watchtower that the government in Malawi pushed an agenda of extreme and vicious persecution upon good citizens of Malawi just because they had sound religious reasons not to purchase a political party card.

I delved into the insights of this article. At least, I read it and found it very easy to understand. But didn't see why you recommended it. Did you think it was supportive of the so-called "overlapping generation" theory, or non-supportive. And in either case, was there something specific in that article you wanted to highlight?  If so, where?
Here's the 2005 edition, for reference pps:244-246:
 

Something very interesting about the parable is the reference to the term "everyone," here. It's obvious that Jesus often used illustrations (parables, allegories, and analogies) in which a single person or small group of persons actually represented a larger group, sometimes everyone, or at least all Christians. But what was usually important in the illustrations was not the actual specific activity that the person or persons engaged in, but their attitude and response toward a particular situation. Usually Jesus was pointing out an attitude that should be true of all Christians, such as patience, loyalty, humility, persistence in prayer, watchfulness, mercy, faithfulness,forgiveness, etc.
For example, Jesus gave a parable of a tax collector and Pharisee in Luke 9:10-14. He wasn't making a prophecy that there would someday exist a "tax collector class" of Christians that would begin existing in 1919, for example. He wasn't saying that Christians should follow the example of tax collectors either. The importance of the illustration is that the tax collector was blessed for being humble and recognizing how unworthy he was, as opposed to the Pharisee who claimed to be different and more worthy than the tax collector. Another example was when Jesus gave a parable comparing the response of three different men to a robbery victim who was injured and left on the side of the road. Jesus was not prophesying that there would be a Samaritan class, and a Levite class, or an innkeeper class, or that the road had a certain meaning. (The WTS taught this for many years, but has changed that teaching.) The important thing was how a proper and generous response to someone in need showed who had really made himself "a neighbor" of the victim. Obviously, even though Jesus gave this "moral of the story" to one particular person, the meaning is true for all, and especially for Christians: (Luke 10:36, 37) 36 Who of these three seems to you to have made himself neighbor to the man who fell victim to the robbers?” 37 He said: “The one who acted mercifully toward him.” Jesus then said to him: “Go and do the same yourself. ”Note, too, that the illustration was given to answer the question: (Luke 10:29) “Who really is my neighbor?” which reminds us of "Who really is a faithful and discreet slave? and "Who is an unfaithful servant?" Other illustrations were used in order to answer similar questions, such as: “Who really is greatest in the Kingdom of the heavens?” and the answer was that it was "whoever" became like a small child in terms of their humility. "Therefore, whoever will humble himself like this young child is the one who is the greatest in the Kingdom of the heavens." (Matthew 18:1-6) Another example is the parable about a slave who defrauded his master when he knew he was about to be fired. (Luke 16:1-13) The illustration was given because it gave Jesus' followers an interesting insight into their own attitude toward money and "unrighteous riches," and Jesus therefore created an analogy about how Christians should put a different kind of value on riches than what the world does. Jesus was not prophesying that there should be a "defrauding" class of Christians that would appear sometime around 1919, and Jesus, again, was surely not promoting that Christians should defraud their work masters. Note that this was another illustration about a "discreet slave:" (Luke 16:8) "And his master commended the steward, though unrighteous, because he acted discreetly." [New World Translation, footnote]; Many more possible examples exist, but one of the most famous is the parable about the difference between the way two sons manage their father's inheritance. One son is loyal and continues to work in the father's fields. The other son wastes the money away in a life of debauchery and shame. (Luke 15:11-32) When the debauched and destitute son returns to the father, he is celebrated, much to the consternation of the loyal and stable son. Again, this is not a prophecy about two different classes of Christians that would make their first appearances between 1919 and 1935. (The Watchtower taught for many years that this was the case, but has recently changed that teaching.) Jesus is not teaching us that it is better to return from a life a debauchery than to remain loyal and stable in the master's service. These were merely situations appropriate, not because of the specific activities described, but because of the attitudes and responses to those situations. So this could makes us think again about the parable of the faithful and unfaithful slaves in Matthew 24 and Luke 12. There is no specific Bible basis for saying that this was a prophecy about a person or a group or groups of people who would make their first appearance around 1919. Jesus was not saying that all Christians would serve food to his body of attendants. Nor is there anything in the parable that tells us that the food here refers to spiritual food. Just like the parable of the Samaritan, there is no Bible basis for saying that the money the Samaritan gave to the innkeeper had some spiritual meaning. The important point is the appropriate attitude. We are "stewards" of Christ and Christianity and the important thing in a steward is to be found faithful.
(1 Corinthians 4:2) 2 Besides, in this case, what is looked for in stewards is for a man to be found faithful.
(1 Peter 4:10) 10 To the extent that each one has received a gift, use it in ministering to one another as fine stewards of God’s undeserved kindness that is expressed in various ways.

In past discussions, the idea has been brought up that there is nothing wrong with identifying persons who will use their particular gifts or ministries to take the lead and to teach, and this is still appropriate in congregations of any size, including the "world-wide congregation" as long as that lead is not intended as a way of creating a kind of tribunal or to create governors of our faith. For practical reasons, to keep peace in a congregation, there is always a need for some to take the lead and some to serve as shepherds. In a teaching ministry such as we strive for among Jehovah's Witnesses, we would expect some to focus on making sure that we can speak in agreement by looking closely at our teaching. 
That doesn't change the fact that Jesus was giving illustrations in Matthew 24 for all Christians to be on the watch, and for all Christians to watch their attitude as servants who have been given a serious responsibility.
All of us should ask the same question that Peter asked:
(Luke 12:41-48) 41 Then Peter said: “Lord, are you telling this illustration just to us or also to everyone?” 42 And the Lord said: “Who really is the faithful steward, the discreet one, whom his master will appoint over his body of attendants to keep giving them their measure of food supplies at the proper time? . . .  Indeed, everyone to whom much was given, much will be demanded of him, and the one who was put in charge of much will have more than usual demanded of him.

Usually when we refer to the "faithful and discreet slave" parable, we are really referring to the parable of 'the faithful and the unfaithful slave' found in Matthew 24:45-51. In fact, the parable of the "faithful and discreet slave" is also found in Luke, where the expression is changed a bit to "the faithful steward, the discreet one . . . that slave."
(Luke 12:42-48) 42 And the Lord said: “Who really is the faithful steward, the discreet one, whom his master will appoint over his body of attendants to keep giving them their measure of food supplies at the proper time? 43 Happy is that slave if his master on coming finds him doing so! 44 I tell you truthfully, he will appoint him over all his belongings. 45 But if ever that slave should say in his heart, ‘My master delays coming,’ and starts to beat the male and female servants and to eat and drink and get drunk, 46 the master of that slave will come on a day that he is not expecting him and at an hour that he does not know, and he will punish him with the greatest severity and assign him a part with the unfaithful ones. 47 Then that slave who understood the will of his master but did not get ready or do what he asked will be beaten with many strokes. 48 But the one who did not understand and yet did things deserving of strokes will be beaten with few. Indeed, everyone to whom much was given, much will be demanded of him, and the one who was put in charge of much will have more than usual demanded of him.
"That slave" is given the assignment to feed the master's "body of attendants." If he obeys, he gets a promotion, and if he disobeys he is punished. This is the exact same idea as in Matthew 24, except that there are only about 15 words referring to what happens if this slave obeys and 150 words in the section about what happens if the slave disobeys. That's about 10 times as much space given to the idea of disobedience versus obedience. In Matthew it's only about 3 times as much space given to the idea of disobedience.
That might explain why the verses in Matthew are referenced so much more often in Watch Tower publications and talks. The Watchtower has, of course, minimized the idea of any potential disobedience:
*** w13 7/15 p. 24 “Who Really Is the Faithful and Discreet Slave?” ***
Was Jesus foretelling that there would be an evil slave class in the last days? No. Granted, some individuals have manifested a spirit similar to that of the evil slave described by Jesus. We would call them apostates, whether they were of the anointed or of the “great crowd.” (Rev. 7:9) But such ones do not make up an evil slave class. Jesus did not say that he would appoint an evil slave. His words here are actually a warning directed to the faithful and discreet slave.
  Notice that Jesus introduces the warning with the words “if ever.” One scholar says that in the Greek text, this passage “for all practical purposes is a hypothetical condition.”
This is an adjustment to the doctrine held just up until the change in 2013. Prior to the quote above (originally presented at the Annual Meeting in 2012) the idea about the evil slave was just the opposite: that the "evil slave" came directly from the ranks of the "faithful slave."
*** w04 3/1 p. 13 pars. 2-4 ‘The Faithful Slave’ Passes the Test! ***
The expression “that evil slave” draws our attention to Jesus’ preceding words about the faithful and discreet slave. Yes, the “evil slave” came from the ranks of the faithful slave. How?
3 Before 1914, many members of the faithful slave class had high hopes of meeting with the Bridegroom in heaven that year, but their hopes were not fulfilled. As a result of this and other developments, many were disappointed and a few became embittered. Some of these turned to ‘beating’ their former brothers verbally and consorting with “confirmed drunkards,” religious groups of Christendom.—Isaiah 28:1-3; 32:6.
4 These former Christians came to be identified as the “evil slave,” and Jesus punished them with “the greatest severity.” How? He rejected them, and they lost out on their heavenly hope. They were not, however, immediately destroyed. They first had to endure a period of weeping and gnashing of teeth in “the darkness outside” the Christian congregation. (Matthew 8:12) Since those early days, a few other anointed individuals have shown a similar bad spirit, identifying themselves with the “evil slave.” Some of the “other sheep” have imitated their unfaithfulness. (John 10:16)
Now, of course, the "faithful slave" is made to be the equivalent of the Governing Body since 1919. (The Governing Body has only existed in its current form since the early to mid-1970s.) For this reason, evidently, it would no longer be appropriate to consider or expect that the evil slave might come from the ranks of the Governing Body. Continuing this teaching would likely create a measure of suspicion and questioning of the Governing Body itself.

So let me make sure I have this straight. Gates becomes rich when Microsoft goes public in 1986, so he pays off a mortgage and goes out and splurges on a fast car in 1979, and that helps explains the mugshot from 1977.
The mugshot is actually for an unknown offense. Gates was still trying to tie it to a "traffic" offense 20 years later, but speeding is, on its own, not an offense that one gets arrested for. If it were another kind of "trafficking" or perhaps, as one rumor had it, the theft of some construction equipment or materials, this might make more sense. It might not have been any kind of "theft" but that would have been a terrible legacy for someone often accused of the improper "borrowing" of ideas from CP/M, Unix variations, earlier versions of Basic, Xerox Alto, etc.
My first major "platform" was a Xerox Sigma 7. I was working for Honeywell, and then a company that was Wang's biggest client tied to IBM's mainframe VM. During these years Microsoft was becoming famous for trafficking in "vaporware" which was a sales trick to keep customers from switching over to other software vendors (WordPerfect, Lotus 1-2-3, AmiPro, etc.) while Microsoft had not yet figured out how to copy the features that were gaining market share for those other products.

It's a simple principle. It's based primarily on an idea that Jesus spoke about:
(Luke 8:16, 17) 16 “No one after lighting a lamp covers it with a vessel or puts it underneath a bed, but he puts it on a lampstand so that those who come in may see the light. 17 For there is nothing hidden that will not become manifest, nor anything carefully concealed that will never become known and not come out in the open.
As a teaching organization with a teaching ministry then we will naturally want everyone to know exactly how we have handled issues both in the past and in the present (now what we have learned from any of our own mistakes from the past). This shows how appreciative we are even where Jehovah's discipline has taught us to do better, and how we are now joyous about the "peaceable fruit of righteousness" that comes from it.
(Hebrews 12:5-11) . . .“My son, do not belittle the discipline from Jehovah, nor give up when you are corrected by him; 6 for those whom Jehovah loves he disciplines, in fact, he scourges everyone whom he receives as a son.” . . .  but he does so for our benefit so that we may partake of his holiness. 11 True, no discipline seems for the present to be joyous, but it is painful; yet afterward, it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.
Therefore, whenever the Governing Body is not open and clear and transparent about publishing its directions to all, then the reason for hiding it is necessarily because we know that there was something wrong with the ingredients. Whenever a member of the Governing Body is reluctant to speak out in person to explain what we do and why in every matter, doctrinal, financial, and legal, then they must be aware that there is something toxic to someone, something embarrassing to someone. Otherwise we would embrace every opportunity:
(Matthew 10:18-20) 18 And you will be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a witness to them and the nations. 19 However, when they hand you over, do not become anxious about how or what you are to speak, for what you are to speak will be given you in that hour; 20 for the ones speaking are not just you, but it is the spirit of your Father that speaks by you. We have argued that there is sometimes a trade-off in protecting Jehovah's organization and this sometimes means that the victims, the "little ones" must suffer. Protecting "Jehovah's" reputation instead of protecting victims of abuse is a perfect example. But it doesn't stop there. Protecting traditions in doctrines instead of being open and transparent about the ingredients of that doctrine is not just evidence that the doctrine is too weak to stand up to transparency, but is also proof that the promoters of such doctrine realize the potential danger and toxicity. Any thorough study of the attempts to explain some chronology doctrines in our publications, for example, shows that as much as 95% of the evidence is never mentioned at all, and even the 5% remaining is often dealt with through obfuscating, specious, or fallacious argumentation. When various documented elements of our organizational history are not just hidden but consistently reviewed with a false spin (whitewash) then it is clear that the intent is to hide the fact that past servings have been "toxic," and this makes the current purpose of such review suspect as toxic too.
For me, this is a very small portion of the overall menu, but through personal experience I can have no doubt that a type of dishonesty fueled some of the "food" preparation for such portions. The percentage of the portions might be insignificant, but the principle is serious:
(Luke 16:10) The person faithful in what is least is faithful also in much, and the person unrighteous in what is least is unrighteous also in much.
 
 

The small problem with this statement is easy to detect, and I'm sure you saw it, too.
It appears to claim that if "some" direction was given that was not in harmony with God's word, then "all of Jehovah's Witnesses" would notice. This has never, ever been true! Every time "some" change is made to a doctrine (and there have been literally hundreds of such changes) then the GB made this change because it was important to be in more complete harmony with God's word. In other words, if the change was made for the new teaching to be in harmony with God's word, then the previous teaching was not in complete harmony with God's word.
Yet, there has never been a case where more than a very few Jehovah's Witnesses spoke up, often none at all, as far as anyone knew. Back in the days when we were more attuned to anxiously await the latest "new light" from the yearly convention, the comments were always about how pleasantly surprised everyone was. No Witnesses are ever asked by the Governing Body what they think of a new doctrine and almost no Witnesses would dare say anything except that they agree completely, and that it was surely "food at the proper time." This is true, even though many of those items of "new truth" that we learned at all the assemblies in my formative years have been nearly scrapped, from "Your Will Be Done on Earth" [King of North/South, antimatter, fear of Sputnik] "Let Your Name Be Sanctified" [type-antitype Elijah as "Rutherford" and Elisha as "Knorr"] to "Babylon the Great Has Fallen" [Revelation "commentary" where almost half the paragraphs are already out of date].
I remember some of the adjustments, and wrong ideas over the years have been explained as "the right thing at the wrong time" or even once as "the wrong thing at the right time." [e.g., "superior authorities" of Romans 13]. Yet, it is always "food at the proper time" as far as perhaps 99% of us are concerned. 
But that's not the biggest problem with the claim. If it were true that even "some" wrong direction were easily detected by "all" then there is no need for a special "slave class" to present doctrines. If Brother Jackson is right, then it would be better to start from scratch and vote on each doctrine democratically.
This is not a complaint about the spiritual food we receive, and it's true that the specific menu of doctrines we enjoy is fulfilling and satisfies our spiritual needs. Over the years, however, much of it has proven to have been served at the wrong time, or it was the wrong thing. Some has even been toxic and resulted in spiritual death and loss of spiritual health for many. And we now have evidence that some of it has been kept toxic on purpose for many years because the servers didn't want to admit that it was bad food, even though the GB knew it was. (For example: The directions given on handing pedophilia cases for many years, corporal punishment of children, how a sister should respond to a physically abusive husband, chronological end-times speculation.)
I think most of these things have been corrected, or are in the process of further correction. But I don't blame the bad food on the "faithful and discreet slave" because I don't believe that this parable was a prophecy in the first place. For the most part the "spiritual food" served is wonderful. Where it is wrong it is usually corrected with something that is obviously better. But where someone digs in their heels and holds to false doctrine because of a tradition or inability to admit that it might have been wrong, this is not about an appointed "slave" proving themselves to be an "evil" slave, it's just the common human tendency of people who are looked up to as leaders to become like the Pharisees, and see themselves as more important or righteous. Teachers receive heavier judgment.
That's really the reason for the parable, anyway, as far as I can tell. It's so that a person who takes on the leadership position of Brother Jackson, for example, doesn't forget that he should be in subjection to you, Anna, and that he should be willing to give a literal drink of water to you or visit you when you are physically sick, or give you some actual physical food to eat if you are hungry.  And the parable was also meant to remind you, Anna, not to forget that you should be in subjection to Brother Jackson, and not be quick to judge him harshly even if you see that he has taken a false step. We should try to build each other up with patience and discretion and faithfulness, picking each other up as best we can, and trying to understand each others' mental, emotional, physical and spiritual needs so that we can be an encouragement to each other. As the "day" continues to draw near, we want to show love toward one another, so that all of us continue awaiting Jesus "parousia" without unnecessary distraction from the world and its desires. The point of the parable is that if the Master is away it's easy to lose faith, but by building our congregations up into a family of brothers and sisters who look out for each other with love, we will not be tempted to lose faith in the promise, which can result in disobendience to the Master, and being overly concerned about who is right and who isn't, or finding opportunities to "lord it over" our fellow servants.

I can't see it any other way. Jesus said that a master would appoint a steward to keep his household running smoothly even when the master is away.
In context, we naturally assume that Jesus is referring to the fact that Christians are given a responsibility in an assignment and should remain obedient and watchful in their assignment. As JW's most of us also assume that the Christians who are given this responsibility are only a small group of people who fulfill this responsibility by serving spiritual food to the entire group of Christians earthwide.
That's a possibility. But we take it a bit further and say that it was a prophecy that begins in 1919.
That's where the problem of avoiding the potential for suspicion comes in. Jesus is supposed to be prophesying that the Governing Body of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society in 1919 would begin serving up "food at the proper time" to the entire household of faith. (In the past decade or two, this Governing Body is no longer directly associated, legally, with the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, but with the "Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses.")
But was Jesus predicting only that this slave would remain faithful? The Watchtower indicates that this is so by claiming in the Watchtower, as quoted in the original post: "Notice that Jesus introduces the warning with the words “if ever.” One scholar says that in the Greek text, this passage “for all practical purposes is a hypothetical condition.”
It's a footnote on page 71 of "New English Translation - Novum Testamentum Graece" which is the best source of the Nestle-Aland Greek text with interlinear text and notes edited by Michael H. Burer, W. Hall Harris III and Daniel B. Wallace. The note says:
"In the Greek text this is a third class condition that for all practical purposes is a hypothetical condition (note the translation of the following verb "should say"). Cf. CEV, NCV "But suppose."
In actuality, even though it is hypothetical, it has nothing to do with whether it will happen or not. The term "if" doesn't even need to be translated this way. The same word is used in the Greek Scriptures when it has nothing to do with whether the option or event will happen. In fact, on page 91 of the same translation, Mark 1:40,41 says: "Now a leper came to him and fell to his knees, asking for help. 'If you are willing, you can make me clean," he said. Moved with compassion Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him saying, "I am willing. Be clean!" The term if is also noted to be in the third class condition according to the similar footnote on this verse.
Then again, the same term "if" is not always considered important to translate in dozens of its appearances in the Greek Scriptures. And the idea of "if" can also be added even where it doesn't appear specifically in Greek. Note that the NWT adds it in Luke 12 to the positive case where it's the "faithful slave" being referred to.
(Luke 12:43) Happy is that slave if his master on coming finds him doing so!
In fact, the "if" idea is obvious in the conclusion of other illustrations that Jesus gave, where it is clear that Jesus expects more people to be without faith, than people with faith:
(Luke 18:8) . . .Nevertheless, when the Son of man arrives, will he really find this faith on the earth?”

So if there is a prophecy here about an appointed slave being faithful, and Jesus gives several outcomes in the event that the slave is not faithful, then why would we not consider it true that Jesus had just prophesied about several outcomes for this appointed steward? Why would Jesus have gone to the trouble of describing various ways in which the servant could prove unfaithful?
We would therefore be expecting that some of the people who either claimed to be a part of this group, or who we have determined to be a part of this group would prove unfaithful. And because of Jesus' words, we might even expect that more would be unfaithful than would be faithful. Therefore, we would want to be watching closely to make sure that we were not found guilty ourselves by our lack of watchfulness in this regard.
 
I think I probably already made clear that, for me, the illustration is not about a special group who identify themselves as different from all other Christians, and therefore set themselves up as "governors" or "lords" over other Christians, but it must refer to the humble, discreet, and faithful and watchful and patient attitude of all Christians as we each are in subjection to each other.
(Ephesians 5:21-25) 21 Be in subjection to one another in fear of Christ. . . .  just as the Christ is head of the congregation, he being a savior of this body. 24 In fact, as the congregation is in subjection to the Christ, . . .  just as the Christ also loved the congregation and gave himself up for it,
(Ephesians 6:5-7) 5 Slaves, be obedient to your human masters, with fear and trembling in the sincerity of your hearts, as to the Christ, 6 not only when being watched, just to please men, but as Christ’s slaves doing the will of God whole-souled. 7 Slave with a good attitude, as to Jehovah and not to men,
When Paul says that he has a "stewardship" in the "household" of God, he uses the term "diakonos"
(Colossians 1:25) 25 I became a minister of this congregation in accord with the stewardship from God that was given to me in your behalf to preach the word of God fully,
But this is the same term that refers to all of us. Note Matthew 20:26, similar to the verse already quoted by Witness, and John 12. Obviously there are dozens more verses, too, that use the same term for "minister" and "servant."
(Matthew 20:25-27) 25 But Jesus called them to him and said: “You know that the rulers of the nations lord it over them and the great men wield authority over them. 26 This must not be the way among you; but whoever wants to become great among you must be your minister [steward], diakonos], 27 and whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave.
(John 12:26) 26 If anyone would minister to me, let him follow me, and where I am, there my minister [steward, diakonos] will be also. If anyone would minister to me, the Father will honor him.
So the pillar and support of the truth for the congregation is not found in a separate "slave class" or a body of teachings, but is the entire household serving each other.
(1 Timothy 3:14, 15) 14 I am writing you these things, though I am hoping to come to you shortly, 15 but in case I am delayed, so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in God’s household, which is the congregation of the living God, a pillar and support of the truth.
This must be why, in Paul's longer dissertation against the idea of a "Governing Body" in Jerusalem, found in the first two chapters of Galations, he could say that James, Peter and John "seemed to be pillars" (2:9):
(Galatians 1:10) 10 Is it, in fact, men I am now trying to persuade or God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I would not be Christ’s slave.
 

Biblically, there can be no such thing as a "Governing Body" of the Christian congregation itself.The term "Governing Body" is a traditional, secular term that derives from legal corporations, just like the terms "board of directors," "proxy voting," "officers," "shareholders." The position corresponding to that kind of "head" of the congregation is already defined in the Bible as Jesus Christ himself, shared with no one else. Joseph Rutherford, a lawyer, was very fond of replacing religious terms with secular terms, and he called each congregation a "company" and called Jesus the "Chief Executive Officer." These are only two of at least a dozen such terms he used.
(Galatians 3:23-25) 23 However, before the faith arrived, we were being guarded under law, being handed over into custody, looking to the faith that was about to be revealed. 24 So the Law became our guardian leading to Christ, so that we might be declared righteous through faith. 25 But now that the faith has arrived, we are no longer under a guardian.
Paul used the first two chapters of Galatians to show the dangers of looking to a group of well-respected men as a "governing body" and he explains clearly why he rejected the concept. Paul was also consistent elsewhere, of course, on this topic. I think Paul's longest dissertation (outside Galatians) against a human "governing body" was in 1 Corinthians. I think it is also the perfect backdrop for how we should understand the verses in Hebrews that are often made use of to defend the idea of a governing body: (Hebrews 13:7) "Remember those who are taking the lead among you, who have spoken the word of God to you, and as you contemplate how their conduct turns out, imitate their faith."
The passage is long, so I'll just highlight a few of the verses here that seem relevant:
(1 Corinthians 2:15-4:17) 15 However, the spiritual man examines all things, but he himself is not examined by any man. 16 For “who has come to know the mind of Jehovah, so that he may instruct him?” But we do have the mind of Christ. . . . 3 for you are still fleshly. . . .  4 For when one says, “I belong to Paul,” but another says, “I to A·polʹlos,” are you not acting like mere men? 5 What, then, is A·polʹlos? Yes, what is Paul? Ministers through whom you became believers, just as the Lord granted each one. 6 I planted, A·polʹlos watered, but God kept making it grow, 7 so that neither is the one who plants anything nor is the one who waters, but God who makes it grow. . . .  You are God’s field under cultivation, God’s building. , , , But let each one keep watching how he is building on it. 11 For no one can lay any other foundation than what is laid, which is Jesus Christ. . . . 16 Do you not know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that the spirit of God dwells in you? . . . 20 And again: “Jehovah knows that the reasonings of the wise men are futile.” 21 So let no one boast in men; for all things belong to you, 22 whether Paul or A·polʹlos or Ceʹphas or the world or life or death or things now here or things to come, all things belong to you; 23 in turn you belong to Christ; Christ, in turn, belongs to God. 4 A man should regard us as attendants of Christ and stewards of God’s sacred secrets. 2 In this regard, what is expected of stewards is that they be found faithful. 3 Now to me it is of very little importance to be examined by you or by a human tribunal. In fact, I do not even examine myself. 4 For I am not conscious of anything against myself. But by this I am not proved righteous; the one who examines me is Jehovah. 5 Therefore, do not judge anything before the due time, until the Lord comes. He will bring the secret things of darkness to light and make known the intentions of the hearts, and then each one will receive his praise from God. 6 Now, brothers, these things I have applied to myself and A·polʹlos for your good, that through us you may learn the rule: “Do not go beyond the things that are written,” so that you may not be puffed up with pride, favoring one against the other. 7 For who makes you different from another? Indeed, what do you have that you did not receive? If, in fact, you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not receive it? 8 Are you already satisfied? Are you already rich? Have you begun ruling as kings without us? I really wish that you had begun ruling as kings, so that we also might rule with you as kings. 9 For it seems to me that God has put us the apostles last on exhibition as men condemned to death, because we have become a theatrical spectacle to the world, and to angels and to men. . . . 14 I am writing these things, not to put you to shame, but to admonish you as my beloved children. 15 For though you may have 10,000 guardians [tutors] in Christ, you certainly do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus, I have become your father through the good news. 16 I urge you, therefore, become imitators of me. 17 That is why I am sending Timothy to you, because he is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord. He will remind you of my methods [ways] in connection with Christ Jesus, just as I am teaching everywhere in every congregation.
There is always going to be a strong temptation to accept well-known leaders as if they held the position of apostles. The so-called "superfine apostles" that the Corinthians looked to as leaders may have included the Jerusalem apostles, but also men like Apollos who might have been better speakers in person, whereas Paul may have been a better writer, for example. (See 2 Corinthians.) But the foundation of apostles has also already been completed:
(1 Corinthians 12:28-31) 28 And God has assigned the respective ones in the congregation: first, apostles; second, prophets; third, teachers; then powerful works; then gifts of healings; helpful services; abilities to direct; different tongues. 29 Not all are apostles, are they? Not all are prophets, are they? Not all are teachers, are they? Not all perform powerful works, do they? 30 Not all have gifts of healings, do they? Not all speak in tongues, do they? Not all are interpreters, are they? 31 But keep striving for the greater gifts. And yet I will show you a surpassing way.
"Guardians of the doctrine" is most definitely intended as a reference to the work of the apostles, "The Twelve," based on the time that Jesus asked them to stay in Jerusalem so that they, all together, would receive the benefit of the outpouring of "holy spirit." Brother Jackson even referenced a portion of Acts that was part of this narrative:
(Acts 1:4) 4 While he was meeting with them, he ordered them: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but keep waiting for what the Father has promised,. . .
(Acts 6:2-4) 2 So the Twelve called the multitude of the disciples together and said: “It is not right for us to leave the word of God to distribute food to tables. 3 So, brothers, select for yourselves seven reputable men from among you, full of spirit and wisdom, that we may appoint them over this necessary matter; 4 but we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.”
I do not consider the Governing Body to be governors of our faith. According to Paul, all of us need to take on the responsibility as guardians of doctrine (teachings). (The reference to 10,000 guardians in 1 Corinthinans is interesting)  I do respect our Governing Body as experienced leaders in practical matters related to running the needs of an organization. But following the leaders in our congregation(s) is not primarily about a set of doctrines, which are already set from the time of the apostles themselves. Their leadership is about activities in which they lead. Congregational leadership is more about shepherding. Although it must often include corrections to doctrinal deviation, and explaining basic teachings for those who are not mature enough to understand, shepherding is mostly about the love and care and personal help and guidance provided to all of us as needed.
But we are no longer under a separate human guardian or guardians with respect to rules, doctrines and teachings. The Jewish religious leaders held that "office" for many years:
(Romans 3:1-4)  What, then, is the advantage of the Jew, . . .  First of all, that they were entrusted with the sacred pronouncements of God. . . .  But let God be found true, even if every man be found a liar,. . .
For Christians, the "apostles" guarded those teachings. At this point we have no such guardian of our teaching except the words themselves approved from the era of the apostles. At this point, we do not go beyond the things written. This is summed up well in what 2 Peter says about Paul's writings:
(2 Peter 3:15-18) 15 Furthermore, consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking about these things as he does in all his letters. However, some things in them are hard to understand, and these things the ignorant and unstable are twisting, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. 17 You, therefore, beloved ones, having this advance knowledge, be on your guard so that you may not be led astray with them by the error of the lawless people and fall from your own steadfastness. 18 No, but go on growing in the undeserved kindness and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.. . .
The portion of 1 Corinthians was already quoted that relates human leadership of this sort to "going beyond the things written."
(1 Corinthians 4:6) 6 Now, brothers, these things I have applied to myself and A·polʹlos for your good, that through us you may learn the rule: “Do not go beyond the things that are written,” so that you may not be puffed up with pride, favoring one against the other. . .
A good example to show the need for taking personal responsibility with respect to following and guarding the teaching of the apostles already given is what was said to a young man named Timothy.
(1 Timothy 4:16) 16 Pay constant attention to yourself and to your teaching. . . .
(2 Timothy 1:12-14) . . .. 13 Keep holding to the standard of wholesome words that you heard from me with the faith and love that result from union with Christ Jesus. 14 Guard this fine trust by means of the holy spirit, which is dwelling in us.
Also Paul warned that we even would have needed to be watchful about putting too much trust in humans, even if they are angels from heaven or even the living apostles themselves!  This is what Paul said to the Galatians who put too much trust in the apostles as guardians of doctrines, before the full results of their conduct had been proven:
(Galatians 6:4-6) 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.
(Galatians 1:8) 8 However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond the good news we declared to you, let him be accursed.
(Galatians 2:6-12) 6 But regarding those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me, for God does not go by a man’s outward appearance—those highly regarded men imparted nothing new to me. 7 On the contrary,. . .  when they recognized the undeserved kindness that was given me, James and Ceʹphas and John, the ones who seemed to be pillars, gave Barʹna·bas and me the right hand of fellowship, so that we should go to the nations but they to those who are circumcised. 10 They asked only that we keep the poor in mind, and this I have also earnestly endeavored to do. 11 However, when Ceʹphas came to Antioch, I resisted him face-to-face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12 For before certain men from James arrived, he used to eat with people of the nations; but when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcised class.
That is certainly a good reminder about the limitations in following those who take the lead. If we had lived at the time of the apostles we would have been personally responsible not to follow their lead in all things. We are responsible to make sure of all things, to make sure we have contemplated how their conduct turns out first:
(Hebrews 13:7) "Remember those who are taking the lead among you, who have spoken the word of God to you, and as you contemplate how their conduct turns out, imitate their faith."

Something very interesting about the parable is the reference to the term "everyone," here. It's obvious that Jesus often used illustrations (parables, allegories, and analogies) in which a single person or small group of persons actually represented a larger group, sometimes everyone, or at least all Christians. But what was usually important in the illustrations was not the actual specific activity that the person or persons engaged in, but their attitude and response toward a particular situation. Usually Jesus was pointing out an attitude that should be true of all Christians, such as patience, loyalty, humility, persistence in prayer, watchfulness, mercy, faithfulness,forgiveness, etc.
For example, Jesus gave a parable of a tax collector and Pharisee in Luke 9:10-14. He wasn't making a prophecy that there would someday exist a "tax collector class" of Christians that would begin existing in 1919, for example. He wasn't saying that Christians should follow the example of tax collectors either. The importance of the illustration is that the tax collector was blessed for being humble and recognizing how unworthy he was, as opposed to the Pharisee who claimed to be different and more worthy than the tax collector. Another example was when Jesus gave a parable comparing the response of three different men to a robbery victim who was injured and left on the side of the road. Jesus was not prophesying that there would be a Samaritan class, and a Levite class, or an innkeeper class, or that the road had a certain meaning. (The WTS taught this for many years, but has changed that teaching.) The important thing was how a proper and generous response to someone in need showed who had really made himself "a neighbor" of the victim. Obviously, even though Jesus gave this "moral of the story" to one particular person, the meaning is true for all, and especially for Christians: (Luke 10:36, 37) 36 Who of these three seems to you to have made himself neighbor to the man who fell victim to the robbers?” 37 He said: “The one who acted mercifully toward him.” Jesus then said to him: “Go and do the same yourself. ”Note, too, that the illustration was given to answer the question: (Luke 10:29) “Who really is my neighbor?” which reminds us of "Who really is a faithful and discreet slave? and "Who is an unfaithful servant?" Other illustrations were used in order to answer similar questions, such as: “Who really is greatest in the Kingdom of the heavens?” and the answer was that it was "whoever" became like a small child in terms of their humility. "Therefore, whoever will humble himself like this young child is the one who is the greatest in the Kingdom of the heavens." (Matthew 18:1-6) Another example is the parable about a slave who defrauded his master when he knew he was about to be fired. (Luke 16:1-13) The illustration was given because it gave Jesus' followers an interesting insight into their own attitude toward money and "unrighteous riches," and Jesus therefore created an analogy about how Christians should put a different kind of value on riches than what the world does. Jesus was not prophesying that there should be a "defrauding" class of Christians that would appear sometime around 1919, and Jesus, again, was surely not promoting that Christians should defraud their work masters. Note that this was another illustration about a "discreet slave:" (Luke 16:8) "And his master commended the steward, though unrighteous, because he acted discreetly." [New World Translation, footnote]; Many more possible examples exist, but one of the most famous is the parable about the difference between the way two sons manage their father's inheritance. One son is loyal and continues to work in the father's fields. The other son wastes the money away in a life of debauchery and shame. (Luke 15:11-32) When the debauched and destitute son returns to the father, he is celebrated, much to the consternation of the loyal and stable son. Again, this is not a prophecy about two different classes of Christians that would make their first appearances between 1919 and 1935. (The Watchtower taught for many years that this was the case, but has recently changed that teaching.) Jesus is not teaching us that it is better to return from a life a debauchery than to remain loyal and stable in the master's service. These were merely situations appropriate, not because of the specific activities described, but because of the attitudes and responses to those situations. So this could makes us think again about the parable of the faithful and unfaithful slaves in Matthew 24 and Luke 12. There is no specific Bible basis for saying that this was a prophecy about a person or a group or groups of people who would make their first appearance around 1919. Jesus was not saying that all Christians would serve food to his body of attendants. Nor is there anything in the parable that tells us that the food here refers to spiritual food. Just like the parable of the Samaritan, there is no Bible basis for saying that the money the Samaritan gave to the innkeeper had some spiritual meaning. The important point is the appropriate attitude. We are "stewards" of Christ and Christianity and the important thing in a steward is to be found faithful.
(1 Corinthians 4:2) 2 Besides, in this case, what is looked for in stewards is for a man to be found faithful.
(1 Peter 4:10) 10 To the extent that each one has received a gift, use it in ministering to one another as fine stewards of God’s undeserved kindness that is expressed in various ways.

In past discussions, the idea has been brought up that there is nothing wrong with identifying persons who will use their particular gifts or ministries to take the lead and to teach, and this is still appropriate in congregations of any size, including the "world-wide congregation" as long as that lead is not intended as a way of creating a kind of tribunal or to create governors of our faith. For practical reasons, to keep peace in a congregation, there is always a need for some to take the lead and some to serve as shepherds. In a teaching ministry such as we strive for among Jehovah's Witnesses, we would expect some to focus on making sure that we can speak in agreement by looking closely at our teaching. 
That doesn't change the fact that Jesus was giving illustrations in Matthew 24 for all Christians to be on the watch, and for all Christians to watch their attitude as servants who have been given a serious responsibility.
All of us should ask the same question that Peter asked:
(Luke 12:41-48) 41 Then Peter said: “Lord, are you telling this illustration just to us or also to everyone?” 42 And the Lord said: “Who really is the faithful steward, the discreet one, whom his master will appoint over his body of attendants to keep giving them their measure of food supplies at the proper time? . . .  Indeed, everyone to whom much was given, much will be demanded of him, and the one who was put in charge of much will have more than usual demanded of him.

No I can't say it in one or two sentences. It's a handicap I just have to live with, even if it makes others suffer.  
I think an even better discussion about the slave comes up in the March 2017 study edition of the WT, which I'm sure you already read, too.
Remember that the two most important features of this slave are "faith" and "discretion" (or "faith" and "wisdom", KJV, AS). Appropriately, the title of the article is "Exercise Faith—Decide Wisely!"
And when we study it, we'll sing Song 35 that opens with the words: "How great our need today for discernment . . . " which is, of course, wisdom and discretion.
Obviously, we use the terms "service," "servants," and "slaves" fairly often with reference to all true Christians. In congregational prayer, any of us can refer to Jehovah or even Jesus himself as our Lord, Owner, or Master and no one bats an eyelash (especially if their eyes are already closed).
So while the February article makes several statements that are quite difficult to back up with scripture, the March article makes some very appropriate statements applying to us all, and they fit the entire context of Jesus' parable. If you don't have the issue in hand, you can find the article here: https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-study-march-2017/exercise-faith-decide-wisely/
I'll quote a few portions:
Hence, the ability to make good decisions can help us to live a relatively smooth, peaceful life rather than one that is full of chaos, controversy, and disappointment.—Prov. 14:8. [which says: "By wisdom the shrewd man understands the way he is going, But the stupid are deceived by their foolishness."]
. . . Accordingly, we develop the habit of consulting God’s Word before making decisions. . . .
The above-mentioned examples convey to us a clear lesson. It is up to each of us to make decisions, and the wise, right choices are based on sound Scriptural knowledge. Galatians 6:5 reminds us: “Each one will carry his own load of responsibility.” (Ftn.) We should not give someone else the responsibility to make decisions for us. Rather, we should personally learn what is right in God’s eyes and choose to do it.
. . . Still, no matter how others try to pressure us, it is our responsibility to follow our Bible-trained conscience. In many respects, if we let others make our decisions, we are essentially deciding to “follow them.” It is still a choice, but a potentially disastrous one.
The apostle Paul clearly alerted the Galatians to the danger of letting others make personal decisions for them. (Read Galatians 4:17.) Some in the congregation wanted to make personal choices for others . . . Those selfish ones were seeking prominence. They overstepped proper bounds and did not respect their fellow Christians’ responsibility to make their own decisions.
Paul set a fine example of respecting his brothers’ right of free will to make decisions. (Read 2 Corinthians 1:24.) [which says: "Not that we are the masters over your faith, but we are fellow workers for your joy, for it is by your faith that you are standing. "] Today, when giving counsel on matters involving personal choice, the elders should follow that pattern. They are happy to share Bible-based information with others in the flock. Still, the elders are careful to allow individual brothers and sisters to make their own decisions. That is logical because those individuals will bear the responsibility for the results. Here is an important lesson: We can show helpful interest in others and call attention to Scriptural principles or counsel. Still, others have a right and responsibility to make their own decisions. When they do this wisely, they benefit. Clearly, we should avoid any tendency to think that we are authorized to make decisions for other brothers and sisters.
... When we take the time to weigh carefully all the aspects or facts related to a decision, we will likely be more successful. (1 Thess. 5:21) [which says: "Make sure of all things. . . ."] Before determining a course of action, a family head ought to take the time to research the Scriptures and Christian publications, as well as to consider the opinions or views of others in his family. Recall that God urged Abraham to listen to what his wife had to say. (Gen. 21:9-12) Elders too should take time to do research. And if they are reasonable, modest men, they will not fear losing respect if new, relevant information comes to their attention that indicates a need to reconsider what they had already decided. They should be ready to adjust their thinking and decisions when appropriate, and all of us do well to follow that example. This can promote peace and order in the congregation.—Acts 6:1-4.
. . . Thus, it is vital to draw on the Bible as the best source of advice and to seek Jehovah’s guidance in prayer. And bear in mind that Jehovah can give us the qualities we need to make decisions that are in harmony with his will. When facing important decisions, make it a practice to ask: ‘Will this decision give evidence of my love for Jehovah? Will it bring joy and peace to my family? And will it show that I am patient and kind?’
. . . Jehovah does not coerce us into loving him and serving him. That is our choice. In line with the free will that he grants us, he respects our responsibility and right to ‘choose for ourselves’ whether we will serve him. (Josh. 24:15; Eccl. 5:4) . . . With faith in Jehovah’s way of doing things and the principles that he has kindly provided, we can make wise decisions and prove ourselves steady in all our ways.
---------- end of quotes -------------------
So, I'm sorry if that was long. I'm not saying that the words of Matthew 24:45 and Luke 12:42 should not also apply to the Governing Body, or even all who profess to be of the anointed, but there is no Biblical reason to limit it. In a practical way, all of us are expected to understand that we are obedient in our service to the Master, and all of us are expected to show patience and to carry out our responsibilities of service in a serious and orderly manner. "What is looked for in a steward is to be found faithful," to paraphrase the apostle Paul.
But Jesus wasn't necessarily referring to a specific type of Christian arrangement or organization here. He wasn't necessarily speaking of specific areas of responsibility that referred only to some Christians and not to other Christians. And even if he did, there is nothing in the illustration that says it should apply only to "anointed" Christians. Or that the food spoken of here is supposed to refer to "spiritual" food. In our own view of matters, the Watchtower's view, we hardly expect that there would even be 1 out of 1,000 Christians who would claim to be "anointed" when the Master returns. And if it referred only to a very limited Governing Body who had been associated as officers of a legal corporation for about 50 years (per the February article) and who then later understood that they were actually a different kind of Governing Body for the last 50 years (rounded), then the entire parable refers to only about 30 people in total. Do we really believe that Jesus was talking about giving a level of authority to only 30 people since 1919? And does it make sense then that Jesus says he is going to appoint "him" these 30 people, over all his belongings? How many of these 30 "anointed" members of the Governing Body do we expect to be here when Jesus returns? 7, 4, 2, maybe even just 1 (or less)?
In previous parables, Jesus referred to a household that was going to be broken into by a thief. Does that mean Jesus is a thief? Obviously not! It's a parable that lets us think about how someone would have to be awake all night to avoid being surprised by a thief. The idea was that Christians could then think about what it might mean to be prepared at all times because they would never know the day or the hour of Jesus' return.
Similarly, Jesus gives an illustration here that might not have anything to do with specific functions that any of us might perform, but it's still one that makes us think about how certain circumstances would require patient, orderly and obedient servitude, and the kinds of trouble they would be in, after a surprise, thief-like return of their master.
I say this because all Jesus asked us to do was imagine a situation where a rich and harsh* master counts on some of his servants to be obedient to keep things going smoothly when he is gone. Jesus doesn't say that he is the rich and harsh master in the illustration, any more than he says that he is a thief in the previous illustration. Jesus wants us to imagine what would happen if those persons who were left in charge of the food supply of that household began taking advantage and started over-eating, and getting drunk, and ordering other servants around to do their own bidding instead of the instructions of their master. When the master returns he is going to be mad enough to chop some of them in half, literally. But if servants remain faithful in these circumstances, the master will be pleased enough to reward them.
*I mentioned that the master is "harsh" because he actually is spoken of as chopping the body of the wicked servant in half. Some translators prefer not to translate it this way, because we have a built in prejudice that the master here refers specifically to Jesus, and it makes him sound cruel. The NWT says:
(Matthew 24:51) . . .and he will punish him with the greatest severity. . .
This is a play on words, since he will be severed in two. As the KJV says: " And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites. . . "
 

No I can't say it in one or two sentences. It's a handicap I just have to live with, even if it makes others suffer.  
I think an even better discussion about the slave comes up in the March 2017 study edition of the WT, which I'm sure you already read, too.
Remember that the two most important features of this slave are "faith" and "discretion" (or "faith" and "wisdom", KJV, AS). Appropriately, the title of the article is "Exercise Faith—Decide Wisely!"
And when we study it, we'll sing Song 35 that opens with the words: "How great our need today for discernment . . . " which is, of course, wisdom and discretion.
Obviously, we use the terms "service," "servants," and "slaves" fairly often with reference to all true Christians. In congregational prayer, any of us can refer to Jehovah or even Jesus himself as our Lord, Owner, or Master and no one bats an eyelash (especially if their eyes are already closed).
So while the February article makes several statements that are quite difficult to back up with scripture, the March article makes some very appropriate statements applying to us all, and they fit the entire context of Jesus' parable. If you don't have the issue in hand, you can find the article here: https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-study-march-2017/exercise-faith-decide-wisely/
I'll quote a few portions:
Hence, the ability to make good decisions can help us to live a relatively smooth, peaceful life rather than one that is full of chaos, controversy, and disappointment.—Prov. 14:8. [which says: "By wisdom the shrewd man understands the way he is going, But the stupid are deceived by their foolishness."]
. . . Accordingly, we develop the habit of consulting God’s Word before making decisions. . . .
The above-mentioned examples convey to us a clear lesson. It is up to each of us to make decisions, and the wise, right choices are based on sound Scriptural knowledge. Galatians 6:5 reminds us: “Each one will carry his own load of responsibility.” (Ftn.) We should not give someone else the responsibility to make decisions for us. Rather, we should personally learn what is right in God’s eyes and choose to do it.
. . . Still, no matter how others try to pressure us, it is our responsibility to follow our Bible-trained conscience. In many respects, if we let others make our decisions, we are essentially deciding to “follow them.” It is still a choice, but a potentially disastrous one.
The apostle Paul clearly alerted the Galatians to the danger of letting others make personal decisions for them. (Read Galatians 4:17.) Some in the congregation wanted to make personal choices for others . . . Those selfish ones were seeking prominence. They overstepped proper bounds and did not respect their fellow Christians’ responsibility to make their own decisions.
Paul set a fine example of respecting his brothers’ right of free will to make decisions. (Read 2 Corinthians 1:24.) [which says: "Not that we are the masters over your faith, but we are fellow workers for your joy, for it is by your faith that you are standing. "] Today, when giving counsel on matters involving personal choice, the elders should follow that pattern. They are happy to share Bible-based information with others in the flock. Still, the elders are careful to allow individual brothers and sisters to make their own decisions. That is logical because those individuals will bear the responsibility for the results. Here is an important lesson: We can show helpful interest in others and call attention to Scriptural principles or counsel. Still, others have a right and responsibility to make their own decisions. When they do this wisely, they benefit. Clearly, we should avoid any tendency to think that we are authorized to make decisions for other brothers and sisters.
... When we take the time to weigh carefully all the aspects or facts related to a decision, we will likely be more successful. (1 Thess. 5:21) [which says: "Make sure of all things. . . ."] Before determining a course of action, a family head ought to take the time to research the Scriptures and Christian publications, as well as to consider the opinions or views of others in his family. Recall that God urged Abraham to listen to what his wife had to say. (Gen. 21:9-12) Elders too should take time to do research. And if they are reasonable, modest men, they will not fear losing respect if new, relevant information comes to their attention that indicates a need to reconsider what they had already decided. They should be ready to adjust their thinking and decisions when appropriate, and all of us do well to follow that example. This can promote peace and order in the congregation.—Acts 6:1-4.
. . . Thus, it is vital to draw on the Bible as the best source of advice and to seek Jehovah’s guidance in prayer. And bear in mind that Jehovah can give us the qualities we need to make decisions that are in harmony with his will. When facing important decisions, make it a practice to ask: ‘Will this decision give evidence of my love for Jehovah? Will it bring joy and peace to my family? And will it show that I am patient and kind?’
. . . Jehovah does not coerce us into loving him and serving him. That is our choice. In line with the free will that he grants us, he respects our responsibility and right to ‘choose for ourselves’ whether we will serve him. (Josh. 24:15; Eccl. 5:4) . . . With faith in Jehovah’s way of doing things and the principles that he has kindly provided, we can make wise decisions and prove ourselves steady in all our ways.
---------- end of quotes -------------------
So, I'm sorry if that was long. I'm not saying that the words of Matthew 24:45 and Luke 12:42 should not also apply to the Governing Body, or even all who profess to be of the anointed, but there is no Biblical reason to limit it. In a practical way, all of us are expected to understand that we are obedient in our service to the Master, and all of us are expected to show patience and to carry out our responsibilities of service in a serious and orderly manner. "What is looked for in a steward is to be found faithful," to paraphrase the apostle Paul.
But Jesus wasn't necessarily referring to a specific type of Christian arrangement or organization here. He wasn't necessarily speaking of specific areas of responsibility that referred only to some Christians and not to other Christians. And even if he did, there is nothing in the illustration that says it should apply only to "anointed" Christians. Or that the food spoken of here is supposed to refer to "spiritual" food. In our own view of matters, the Watchtower's view, we hardly expect that there would even be 1 out of 1,000 Christians who would claim to be "anointed" when the Master returns. And if it referred only to a very limited Governing Body who had been associated as officers of a legal corporation for about 50 years (per the February article) and who then later understood that they were actually a different kind of Governing Body for the last 50 years (rounded), then the entire parable refers to only about 30 people in total. Do we really believe that Jesus was talking about giving a level of authority to only 30 people since 1919? And does it make sense then that Jesus says he is going to appoint "him" these 30 people, over all his belongings? How many of these 30 "anointed" members of the Governing Body do we expect to be here when Jesus returns? 7, 4, 2, maybe even just 1 (or less)?
In previous parables, Jesus referred to a household that was going to be broken into by a thief. Does that mean Jesus is a thief? Obviously not! It's a parable that lets us think about how someone would have to be awake all night to avoid being surprised by a thief. The idea was that Christians could then think about what it might mean to be prepared at all times because they would never know the day or the hour of Jesus' return.
Similarly, Jesus gives an illustration here that might not have anything to do with specific functions that any of us might perform, but it's still one that makes us think about how certain circumstances would require patient, orderly and obedient servitude, and the kinds of trouble they would be in, after a surprise, thief-like return of their master.
I say this because all Jesus asked us to do was imagine a situation where a rich and harsh* master counts on some of his servants to be obedient to keep things going smoothly when he is gone. Jesus doesn't say that he is the rich and harsh master in the illustration, any more than he says that he is a thief in the previous illustration. Jesus wants us to imagine what would happen if those persons who were left in charge of the food supply of that household began taking advantage and started over-eating, and getting drunk, and ordering other servants around to do their own bidding instead of the instructions of their master. When the master returns he is going to be mad enough to chop some of them in half, literally. But if servants remain faithful in these circumstances, the master will be pleased enough to reward them.
*I mentioned that the master is "harsh" because he actually is spoken of as chopping the body of the wicked servant in half. Some translators prefer not to translate it this way, because we have a built in prejudice that the master here refers specifically to Jesus, and it makes him sound cruel. The NWT says:
(Matthew 24:51) . . .and he will punish him with the greatest severity. . .
This is a play on words, since he will be severed in two. As the KJV says: " And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites. . . "
 

It's a simple principle. It's based primarily on an idea that Jesus spoke about:
(Luke 8:16, 17) 16 “No one after lighting a lamp covers it with a vessel or puts it underneath a bed, but he puts it on a lampstand so that those who come in may see the light. 17 For there is nothing hidden that will not become manifest, nor anything carefully concealed that will never become known and not come out in the open.
As a teaching organization with a teaching ministry then we will naturally want everyone to know exactly how we have handled issues both in the past and in the present (now what we have learned from any of our own mistakes from the past). This shows how appreciative we are even where Jehovah's discipline has taught us to do better, and how we are now joyous about the "peaceable fruit of righteousness" that comes from it.
(Hebrews 12:5-11) . . .“My son, do not belittle the discipline from Jehovah, nor give up when you are corrected by him; 6 for those whom Jehovah loves he disciplines, in fact, he scourges everyone whom he receives as a son.” . . .  but he does so for our benefit so that we may partake of his holiness. 11 True, no discipline seems for the present to be joyous, but it is painful; yet afterward, it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.
Therefore, whenever the Governing Body is not open and clear and transparent about publishing its directions to all, then the reason for hiding it is necessarily because we know that there was something wrong with the ingredients. Whenever a member of the Governing Body is reluctant to speak out in person to explain what we do and why in every matter, doctrinal, financial, and legal, then they must be aware that there is something toxic to someone, something embarrassing to someone. Otherwise we would embrace every opportunity:
(Matthew 10:18-20) 18 And you will be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a witness to them and the nations. 19 However, when they hand you over, do not become anxious about how or what you are to speak, for what you are to speak will be given you in that hour; 20 for the ones speaking are not just you, but it is the spirit of your Father that speaks by you. We have argued that there is sometimes a trade-off in protecting Jehovah's organization and this sometimes means that the victims, the "little ones" must suffer. Protecting "Jehovah's" reputation instead of protecting victims of abuse is a perfect example. But it doesn't stop there. Protecting traditions in doctrines instead of being open and transparent about the ingredients of that doctrine is not just evidence that the doctrine is too weak to stand up to transparency, but is also proof that the promoters of such doctrine realize the potential danger and toxicity. Any thorough study of the attempts to explain some chronology doctrines in our publications, for example, shows that as much as 95% of the evidence is never mentioned at all, and even the 5% remaining is often dealt with through obfuscating, specious, or fallacious argumentation. When various documented elements of our organizational history are not just hidden but consistently reviewed with a false spin (whitewash) then it is clear that the intent is to hide the fact that past servings have been "toxic," and this makes the current purpose of such review suspect as toxic too.
For me, this is a very small portion of the overall menu, but through personal experience I can have no doubt that a type of dishonesty fueled some of the "food" preparation for such portions. The percentage of the portions might be insignificant, but the principle is serious:
(Luke 16:10) The person faithful in what is least is faithful also in much, and the person unrighteous in what is least is unrighteous also in much.
 
 

The small problem with this statement is easy to detect, and I'm sure you saw it, too.
It appears to claim that if "some" direction was given that was not in harmony with God's word, then "all of Jehovah's Witnesses" would notice. This has never, ever been true! Every time "some" change is made to a doctrine (and there have been literally hundreds of such changes) then the GB made this change because it was important to be in more complete harmony with God's word. In other words, if the change was made for the new teaching to be in harmony with God's word, then the previous teaching was not in complete harmony with God's word.
Yet, there has never been a case where more than a very few Jehovah's Witnesses spoke up, often none at all, as far as anyone knew. Back in the days when we were more attuned to anxiously await the latest "new light" from the yearly convention, the comments were always about how pleasantly surprised everyone was. No Witnesses are ever asked by the Governing Body what they think of a new doctrine and almost no Witnesses would dare say anything except that they agree completely, and that it was surely "food at the proper time." This is true, even though many of those items of "new truth" that we learned at all the assemblies in my formative years have been nearly scrapped, from "Your Will Be Done on Earth" [King of North/South, antimatter, fear of Sputnik] "Let Your Name Be Sanctified" [type-antitype Elijah as "Rutherford" and Elisha as "Knorr"] to "Babylon the Great Has Fallen" [Revelation "commentary" where almost half the paragraphs are already out of date].
I remember some of the adjustments, and wrong ideas over the years have been explained as "the right thing at the wrong time" or even once as "the wrong thing at the right time." [e.g., "superior authorities" of Romans 13]. Yet, it is always "food at the proper time" as far as perhaps 99% of us are concerned. 
But that's not the biggest problem with the claim. If it were true that even "some" wrong direction were easily detected by "all" then there is no need for a special "slave class" to present doctrines. If Brother Jackson is right, then it would be better to start from scratch and vote on each doctrine democratically.
This is not a complaint about the spiritual food we receive, and it's true that the specific menu of doctrines we enjoy is fulfilling and satisfies our spiritual needs. Over the years, however, much of it has proven to have been served at the wrong time, or it was the wrong thing. Some has even been toxic and resulted in spiritual death and loss of spiritual health for many. And we now have evidence that some of it has been kept toxic on purpose for many years because the servers didn't want to admit that it was bad food, even though the GB knew it was. (For example: The directions given on handing pedophilia cases for many years, corporal punishment of children, how a sister should respond to a physically abusive husband, chronological end-times speculation.)
I think most of these things have been corrected, or are in the process of further correction. But I don't blame the bad food on the "faithful and discreet slave" because I don't believe that this parable was a prophecy in the first place. For the most part the "spiritual food" served is wonderful. Where it is wrong it is usually corrected with something that is obviously better. But where someone digs in their heels and holds to false doctrine because of a tradition or inability to admit that it might have been wrong, this is not about an appointed "slave" proving themselves to be an "evil" slave, it's just the common human tendency of people who are looked up to as leaders to become like the Pharisees, and see themselves as more important or righteous. Teachers receive heavier judgment.
That's really the reason for the parable, anyway, as far as I can tell. It's so that a person who takes on the leadership position of Brother Jackson, for example, doesn't forget that he should be in subjection to you, Anna, and that he should be willing to give a literal drink of water to you or visit you when you are physically sick, or give you some actual physical food to eat if you are hungry.  And the parable was also meant to remind you, Anna, not to forget that you should be in subjection to Brother Jackson, and not be quick to judge him harshly even if you see that he has taken a false step. We should try to build each other up with patience and discretion and faithfulness, picking each other up as best we can, and trying to understand each others' mental, emotional, physical and spiritual needs so that we can be an encouragement to each other. As the "day" continues to draw near, we want to show love toward one another, so that all of us continue awaiting Jesus "parousia" without unnecessary distraction from the world and its desires. The point of the parable is that if the Master is away it's easy to lose faith, but by building our congregations up into a family of brothers and sisters who look out for each other with love, we will not be tempted to lose faith in the promise, which can result in disobendience to the Master, and being overly concerned about who is right and who isn't, or finding opportunities to "lord it over" our fellow servants.