JW Insider

Hey, that was the same interesting topic in the study article that addressed it. It highlights the significance of God's intervention in Peter's behalf and emphasizes the vital role of God's Holy Spirit in correcting individuals. Given the greater responsibility borne by Elders, their judgment naturally carries a weightier spiritual impact.
So by all means, if you happen to spot a typo in one of the Watchtower publications, please get in touch with the writing department to ensure it is corrected. It is important to note, however, that this has no bearing on how Elders interact with each other or how concerns are addressed within the congregation or territory.

One more outrageous claim like that and it is off to Worm City for him.
And, what’s with the angel that was able to spring Peter from prison, opening doors right and left, but was not able to spring the one at Mary’s home, leaving Peter knocking in the street. Have him write Bethel about that.

Must not be as obvious as you think because I've never banned anyone. I don't even know if I have the power to ban anyone. It's possible I do, but when I was offered moderator powers it was to help keep some order in some otherwise chaotic threads that kept going off-topic, and most specifically it was offered to me at a time when Allen Smith appeared to be responding to nearly all my posts with an extra dose of vitriol. I was told that I could use my new moderator powers to remove excessively spiteful posts from Allen. As you are well aware, I never did, but left them all just exactly as awful as he wanted to express himself. Then someone came along and deleted several versions of Allen along with all his past posts in many cases. This removed the foundation of my own responses to him which makes it difficult to make sense of those threads if anyone were go back and try to read them. 
I may never know if I actually have the power to ban anyone because I will never use it even if I can.

I don't think disfellowshipping is always unethical. The Christian congregation needs this authority for cases of exceptional wrongdoing, gangrene-like heresy and apostasy, and times when accepting association by someone reprehensible would give the appearance of condoning that person's conduct. But it can be implemented in a "barbaric" manner. I've watched this happen. I worked with Governing Body member, Brother Bert Schroeder, when his practice was to threaten to disfellowshipping persons unless they "snitched" on private conversations they had with friends who were closer to Bert's "political" target at the time. Then the person who snitched was allowed to just walk away unscathed. 
I've seen it used to break apart families where a (young -but-just-over-18) baptized person still lived at home with mental conditions that made it nearly impossible for her to safely live on her own, and yet she was kicked out of the home.
I've seen the threat used on my own sister if she were to tell the truth to hospital personnel that her ministerial servant husband had given her the injuries through a beating. 
I've seen the threat used against a registered nurse, a good friend of my brother, who was told (by Brother James Pellechia of the Writing Department) that she could no longer voluntarily care for a 90-year-old nearly invalid wheelchair-bound brother in a second/third floor apartment in Brooklyn who was disfellowshipped for apostasy, mostly over some negative remarks about Rutherford that he wouldn't recant. (He had been a colporteur under Russell and Rutherford.) The nurse asked my brother (a Bethelite at the time) for help and my wife and I were able to sneak in (partly disguised) to help the disfellowshipped person several times a week, along with another sister who took the other days. He literally would have died without the help.
I agree that you have often spoken truth here. However, this is not a congregation. It's a nearly random collection of persons who take an interest in discussing JW-related topics: some controversial, some innocuous. Every one of us who is here is here against the wishes of the Governing Body and we know it. There is therefore no reason to ban/disfellowship over any issue, with the exception of deliberate or targeted abusive behavior intended to hurt or bring harm to someone. But as we are mostly Witnesses here, we have learned to take such abuse in stride. We expect it. And if we happen to doubt or even reject a doctrine or two that most JWs accept, we understand quite well that we should expect to take some "abuse" for it. That's the only kind of abusive behavior I've gotten from the Allen-Smith-persona-like accounts.
I expect it now and then, and don't agree with JR that such a vigilante-styled zealous one needs to identify himself.
I especially don't like the fact that all the innocuous posts from the same individual get lost in the process. That's overkill over and above what's already overkill. 

Yay! 

I did my one-month penance away from this site, and I'm ready for another 10 years here. LOL.
I hadn't realized that Pudgy also stopped posting the same day. Also, there are dozens of post from George88 that are quoted by others here but when I go back to find the original, they are missing. Looks like JR invoked some of the rules of the forum which may have raised a flag to a moderator. What's left of his requoted comments tells me I probably would not have been much encouraged by the exchanges anyway.
But banning someone like George does almost nothing to remove that kind of vitriol and divisiveness. He still has other active accounts on here anyway. There are times when I think it just makes it worse when old accounts are "reincarnated." Anyone remember these names? 
1 Abusive Behaviour
Moise Racette was warned   March 18, 2023
Not Yet Acknowledged   1 Abusive Behaviour
Chioke Lin was warned  July 15, 2022
 Acknowledged   15 Abusive Behaviour
César Chávez was warned   May 13, 2021
 Acknowledged 1 Abusive Behaviour
Leander H. McNelly was warned  March 8, 2020
 Acknowledged 1 Abusive Behaviour
DefenderOTT was warned  October 24, 2019
Not Yet Acknowledged   1 Abusive Behaviour
Sean Migos was warned  October 24, 2019
 Acknowledged 1 Abusive Behaviour
Allen_Smith was warned   October 23, 2019
Not Yet Acknowledged   1 Spamming
divergenceKO was warned  October 23, 2019
Not Yet Acknowledged 1 Abusive Behaviour
Foreigner was warned October 23, 2019
Not Yet Acknowledged 5 Abusive Behaviour
AllenSmith was warned   July 2, 2018
 Acknowledged  

Must not be as obvious as you think because I've never banned anyone. I don't even know if I have the power to ban anyone. It's possible I do, but when I was offered moderator powers it was to help keep some order in some otherwise chaotic threads that kept going off-topic, and most specifically it was offered to me at a time when Allen Smith appeared to be responding to nearly all my posts with an extra dose of vitriol. I was told that I could use my new moderator powers to remove excessively spiteful posts from Allen. As you are well aware, I never did, but left them all just exactly as awful as he wanted to express himself. Then someone came along and deleted several versions of Allen along with all his past posts in many cases. This removed the foundation of my own responses to him which makes it difficult to make sense of those threads if anyone were go back and try to read them. 
I may never know if I actually have the power to ban anyone because I will never use it even if I can.

I don't think disfellowshipping is always unethical. The Christian congregation needs this authority for cases of exceptional wrongdoing, gangrene-like heresy and apostasy, and times when accepting association by someone reprehensible would give the appearance of condoning that person's conduct. But it can be implemented in a "barbaric" manner. I've watched this happen. I worked with Governing Body member, Brother Bert Schroeder, when his practice was to threaten to disfellowshipping persons unless they "snitched" on private conversations they had with friends who were closer to Bert's "political" target at the time. Then the person who snitched was allowed to just walk away unscathed. 
I've seen it used to break apart families where a (young -but-just-over-18) baptized person still lived at home with mental conditions that made it nearly impossible for her to safely live on her own, and yet she was kicked out of the home.
I've seen the threat used on my own sister if she were to tell the truth to hospital personnel that her ministerial servant husband had given her the injuries through a beating. 
I've seen the threat used against a registered nurse, a good friend of my brother, who was told (by Brother James Pellechia of the Writing Department) that she could no longer voluntarily care for a 90-year-old nearly invalid wheelchair-bound brother in a second/third floor apartment in Brooklyn who was disfellowshipped for apostasy, mostly over some negative remarks about Rutherford that he wouldn't recant. (He had been a colporteur under Russell and Rutherford.) The nurse asked my brother (a Bethelite at the time) for help and my wife and I were able to sneak in (partly disguised) to help the disfellowshipped person several times a week, along with another sister who took the other days. He literally would have died without the help.
I agree that you have often spoken truth here. However, this is not a congregation. It's a nearly random collection of persons who take an interest in discussing JW-related topics: some controversial, some innocuous. Every one of us who is here is here against the wishes of the Governing Body and we know it. There is therefore no reason to ban/disfellowship over any issue, with the exception of deliberate or targeted abusive behavior intended to hurt or bring harm to someone. But as we are mostly Witnesses here, we have learned to take such abuse in stride. We expect it. And if we happen to doubt or even reject a doctrine or two that most JWs accept, we understand quite well that we should expect to take some "abuse" for it. That's the only kind of abusive behavior I've gotten from the Allen-Smith-persona-like accounts.
I expect it now and then, and don't agree with JR that such a vigilante-styled zealous one needs to identify himself.
I especially don't like the fact that all the innocuous posts from the same individual get lost in the process. That's overkill over and above what's already overkill. 

I did my one-month penance away from this site, and I'm ready for another 10 years here. LOL.
I hadn't realized that Pudgy also stopped posting the same day. Also, there are dozens of post from George88 that are quoted by others here but when I go back to find the original, they are missing. Looks like JR invoked some of the rules of the forum which may have raised a flag to a moderator. What's left of his requoted comments tells me I probably would not have been much encouraged by the exchanges anyway.
But banning someone like George does almost nothing to remove that kind of vitriol and divisiveness. He still has other active accounts on here anyway. There are times when I think it just makes it worse when old accounts are "reincarnated." Anyone remember these names? 
1 Abusive Behaviour
Moise Racette was warned   March 18, 2023
Not Yet Acknowledged   1 Abusive Behaviour
Chioke Lin was warned  July 15, 2022
 Acknowledged   15 Abusive Behaviour
César Chávez was warned   May 13, 2021
 Acknowledged 1 Abusive Behaviour
Leander H. McNelly was warned  March 8, 2020
 Acknowledged 1 Abusive Behaviour
DefenderOTT was warned  October 24, 2019
Not Yet Acknowledged   1 Abusive Behaviour
Sean Migos was warned  October 24, 2019
 Acknowledged 1 Abusive Behaviour
Allen_Smith was warned   October 23, 2019
Not Yet Acknowledged   1 Spamming
divergenceKO was warned  October 23, 2019
Not Yet Acknowledged 1 Abusive Behaviour
Foreigner was warned October 23, 2019
Not Yet Acknowledged 5 Abusive Behaviour
AllenSmith was warned   July 2, 2018
 Acknowledged  

I did my one-month penance away from this site, and I'm ready for another 10 years here. LOL.
I hadn't realized that Pudgy also stopped posting the same day. Also, there are dozens of post from George88 that are quoted by others here but when I go back to find the original, they are missing. Looks like JR invoked some of the rules of the forum which may have raised a flag to a moderator. What's left of his requoted comments tells me I probably would not have been much encouraged by the exchanges anyway.
But banning someone like George does almost nothing to remove that kind of vitriol and divisiveness. He still has other active accounts on here anyway. There are times when I think it just makes it worse when old accounts are "reincarnated." Anyone remember these names? 
1 Abusive Behaviour
Moise Racette was warned   March 18, 2023
Not Yet Acknowledged   1 Abusive Behaviour
Chioke Lin was warned  July 15, 2022
 Acknowledged   15 Abusive Behaviour
César Chávez was warned   May 13, 2021
 Acknowledged 1 Abusive Behaviour
Leander H. McNelly was warned  March 8, 2020
 Acknowledged 1 Abusive Behaviour
DefenderOTT was warned  October 24, 2019
Not Yet Acknowledged   1 Abusive Behaviour
Sean Migos was warned  October 24, 2019
 Acknowledged 1 Abusive Behaviour
Allen_Smith was warned   October 23, 2019
Not Yet Acknowledged   1 Spamming
divergenceKO was warned  October 23, 2019
Not Yet Acknowledged 1 Abusive Behaviour
Foreigner was warned October 23, 2019
Not Yet Acknowledged 5 Abusive Behaviour
AllenSmith was warned   July 2, 2018
 Acknowledged  

Oh sure! Here I was thinking that George had finally tracked you down and burned you at the stake! So much for the funeral talk I was preparing.
 
Oh sure! Here I was taking advantage of the situation to posit you and he were the same! (and then afterwards that I had banned you both) So much for my reliability profile.
 
Gasp! You don’t think JR was banned, do you? He could get pretty outrageous, but underneath it all  he had the heart of a pork chop. I mean, George, yes—of course—but there is hardly a point with him, because like a Whack-a-Mole, he is instantly back. But JR—his sense of honor would prevent him coming back under any guise.
He was so reckless in his posts, I guess I should be glad. But somehow I am not. To be sure, I muted his comments. But I usually ended up checking them out one by one anyway.
Oh wait . . .  You mean Juan. Yes, he almost blew a gasket responding to G’s vitriol. He did it well, too. Not that it had the slightest impact on the latter. (But now I am back to wondering what became of the pork chop. Hope he is well.)
Also hope you have been behaving during your absence and that family is well. Now that you are back, turn on the fire-waterworks: 
https://share.icloud.com/photos/036kN6vQPZ9wfl7PnyWb1BJSg
(Oops. My bad. I should not have posted video from the last theocratic gathering. We’ve been asked not to do that.)

Wish it were that simple. This is only ONE of the reasons to be insular. Another reason to be insular is to hide the fact that you are just like the world in some areas and still hope that people will think of you as no part of the world. In other words, it's to hide your dirty laundry.
(Romans 13:11-14) . . .. 12 The night is well along; the day has drawn near. Let us therefore throw off the works belonging to darkness and let us put on the weapons of the light. 13 Let us walk decently as in the daytime, not in wild parties and drunkenness, not in immoral intercourse and brazen conduct, not in strife and jealousy. 14 But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not be planning ahead for the desires of the flesh.
I think it's helpful to always remember that we are talking about crimes: crimes that can be akin to rape and murder and torture and kidnapping and terror. Granted there are some aspects of child sexual abuse that don't appear to sound like crimes. Some persons get caught during the times when they are only "grooming" children for more serious abuse. (Romans 13:14 "planning ahead for the desires of the flesh.") A recent court case includes an elder who was able to convince the other elders that it was "accidental touching" before being caught in several other cases at various stages of abuse. 
I remember when Brother J.R.Brown did an interview and kept focusing on false accusations, accidents, and "lesser" areas of child sexual abuse, such as an 18 year old committing fornication a 16 year old. I didn't see the old 20-20 interview about CSA and still haven't. But I remember listening to J.R.Brown's comments and immediately thinking that he must know that this is a common way to shift attention away from the serious crimes of CSA, which often includes rape/violence. I believe now that the WTS had already paid out millions of dollars even back then, but this is not something that Brother Brown could admit. He made it seem like we didn't really have a problem. I think this kind of hiding, or keeping people in the dark on a matter, could have been very dangerous in that the problem was not dealt with openly. Hinting that matters of "sexual abuse" are associated with apostate lies is another way to keep people in the dark. (Granted that Lett's quote was technically accurate, but it served the same purpose because he was not willing to admit the extent of the problem.)
Brother Jackson at least admitted that these cases of real CSA were not associated with apostate lies. He admitted that it is a real problem in our community, just as it is in the world at large. That was an excellent "change" in the way we began to address the issue. I think it has led to the current shift away from trying to save the reputation of the organization, and make sure that the blame goes to the perpetrator.
Again, I think that even when a person comes to the elders with a case they would like spiritual guidance on, but don't wish to have the case go to the police or other authorities, I think that a desire for privacy should not always be a valid concern. Many types of CSA rise to the level of overriding the legal requirements. Abusers repeatedly are caught repeating the crime with another person. I think there should be times when the elders tell a parent:
"We understand that you want to avoid publicity, embarrassment, and reproach that this would bring on your family and the organization. This family head and 'breadwinner' may even lose his job and no longer be able to easily care for the rest of his family financially. And you may even have the law on your side when it comes to keeping such a terrible thing hidden. But, as for us, we must do all we can to protect the innocent, not the guilty. It is our Christian obligation to protect the innocent, look after orphans and widows in their tribulation, and therefore if necessary, to err on the side of mercy and love for the innocent. If we must make a judgment, we should err on the side of those who are often trampled by the world's justice: the children. It's what we are willing to do for the "least of these" that is deemed as if doing the same for Christ himself.
(Proverbs 11:21) . . .Be assured of this: An evil person will not go unpunished, But the children of the righteous will escape.
(Isaiah 10:1, 2) . . .Woe to those who enact harmful regulations, Who constantly draft oppressive decrees,  2 To deny the legal claim of the poor, To deprive the lowly among my people of justice, Making widows their spoil And fatherless children their plunder!
(Matthew 7:11) 11 Therefore, if you, although being wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more so will your Father who is in the heavens give good things to those asking him!
(Matthew 18:2-5) . . .So calling a young child to him, he stood him in their midst 3 and said: “Truly I say to you, unless you turn around and become as young children, you will by no means enter into the Kingdom of the heavens. 4 Therefore, whoever will humble himself like this young child is the one who is the greatest in the Kingdom of the heavens; 5 and whoever receives one such young child on the basis of my name receives me also.

No, he was not Billy The Kid. BTK was "Wally McNasty" as Pudgy called him. He is also George88, Cesar Chavez, Allen Smith, Alphonse, BTK59 [BillyTheKid59], Moise Racette, Dmitar, Boyle, etc, etc. I used to keep track, but I stopped at around 50 names. 
AlanF never used but that one handle here and evidently in several other forums around the Internet. And he would identify himself with his full name (if you asked) and not just hide behind the handle like some of us. LOL. I never followed him much into those topics about the Flood, the Ice Ages, Evolution, etc., because I'm pretty incompetent about those things and don't care to learn too much just yet about them. Maybe next year.
I don't know exactly what you mean by "his good posts." But I looked back through some chronology topics and found dozens of well written polite posts that merely shared information, and all the while he was getting called names by others here. There was some light-hearted bantering between him and scholarJW  as they had obviously had a long history of previous discussions elsewhere. But I see a lot of obnoxious posts to him before he responded. 
But I will start out with one of his absolute worst, because I thought that TTH's response was about the funniest and most memorable retort:
But that was after he had developed a kind of persona where he had developed a HISTORY with Cesar, and Arauna and TTH, and we already expected that these were just follow-ups from prior topics. But I go to his old topics in 2017, 2018 and 2019 and he was actually quite helpful in providing sources and resources for information. But a topic couldn't go for 10 pages before he started fighting back.
I do see one thing in his favor, in my opinion. Those attacking him were often just offering empty opposition and ignoring his points, or offering "tired" old standby arguments from Young Earth Creationists which he considered totally debunked scientifically. Even though he wasn't attacked with foul language, he was attacked with constant escalating levels of antagonism, and ad hominem stuff. But in the middle of his rather-too-direct responses to those, whenever someone asked a reasonable question, he was right back to giving emotionless straightforward facts to think about. These are the same facts we should be aware of as counter-arguments to, let's say, the Flood, should it ever come up. In the middle of all this bantering, notice how he goes right back to being an encyclopedic resource, even though we don't like the info. Here:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88407-creation-evolution-creative-days-age-of-the-earth-humanoid-fossils-great-flood/?do=findComment&comment=153844
It's too long to display the contents here, but his follow-up comment is also thought-provoking and I'll quote it in full:
That's not faith-building, of course. And it's not stuff I personally want to think about. But it's thought-provoking information and the kind of thing that's useful in a discussion forum, especially if others know how to respond and defend against it (especially the informative post above it with only the link).
 

It has been typical of AllenSmith, J.R.Ewing, Gnosis Pithos, etc., to rely on a kind of "word salad" or various other types of "plays on words" and twisted and incorrect meaning of words. The problem is that while you probably think that it defends a particular Watchtower tradition, it ends up highlighting the weakness of that same tradition. For example, if the word "people" in the above statement of yours refers to people in the Writing Department at Bethel, then it makes more sense. 
This isn't exactly on topic, but in a way it really is. Consider: 
One of the bad things that can happen to a baptized Witness is that she is reading the Bible, runs across a passage that raises a question, then she studies the Watchtower's answer to that question, and her study reveals one of the contradictions or weaknesses of the traditional explanation or a recent update to that explanation. So she goes to the elders where her question reveals doubts, and because it is a question that the elders are unable to answer, she immediately comes under suspicion of having been influenced by apostates. But because her question is not solidly answered, then the same thing might happen again with a second difficult question, so that a pattern has now emerged and some elders might take this as evidence that she is now most definitely under the influence of apostasy, so they must shift the subject to a question of loyalty and obedience. In her frustration at having the topic changed from answering her question to a question of loyalty, her frustrated demeanor is seen as rebellion and an unwillingness to put herself under the authority of the elders or the Governing Body. She may not be disfellowshipped for this, as she might surely have been between 1979 and 1986, but the perceived haughtiness of the elders' response pushes her away from the congregation and she begins to draw away from close association. Her joy is gone and she now finds it physically and mentally depressing to go to the meetings.
You may not have run across such a case, but I did. It was a sister who moved into our congregation in the 1990's, who attended for a while and then disappeared. When my wife spoke with her, this was her exact explanation for why she had moved into our congregation. She had hoped that the attitude she saw displayed was going to be different, but she saw the same kind of haughtiness among some elders and couldn't "shake" the feeling that it would just happen again.

Are you even in the right thread? A person is not a JW just because they have the same initials as Janice Wright.
Besides -- (This one took exactly 30 seconds.) -- "there's a time and a place" and in this instance you got them both wrong.
These photographs actually show a crocodile that was shot and killed on  6 July  2003 at Pointe-Noire in the Republic of Congo. According to an article in allafrica.com, the reptile was a Nile crocodile whose vital statistics fell a bit short of the claims made above: he was estimated to be  50 years  old, about  16 feet  in length, and about  1,900 lbs.  (not quite the 80-year-old,  21-foot,   4,500-pound  monster described in  e-mail).  The local mayor reportedly insisted on preserving the crocodileÂ’s carcass against the efforts of locals who wanted to eat it and arranged for it to be shipped to a taxidermist.

I think you have the essence pretty much correct. What sort of persons we ought to be is a much higher priority than our exact doctrinal beliefs. Witnesses believe this even if most of us don't say it out loud because we know that even the Watch Tower Society under Russell and Rutherford and Knorr and Franz had hundreds of doctrines wrong, but we don't judge them as having been judged harshly by Jehovah. We also believe that billions who have lived and died in the past in every religion on earth will be resurrected to an opportunity to live forever. But we know that Jehovah considers only two teachings to be of the highest priority: love of God and love of neighbor. He is not concerned with specific works, or works at all. Jehovah is concerned with our motivation, and if our motivation is love of God and love of neighbor, then proper "works" will follow naturally. 
Here's how good doctrine ("healthful teaching") will follow. Our love of God makes us want to know more about him. We would expect him to have made himself known without excess difficulty. As Paul says in Romans:
(Romans 10:6-8) 6 But the righteousness resulting from faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ that is, to bring Christ down, 7 or, ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ that is, to bring Christ up from the dead.” 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your own mouth and in your own heart”; that is, “the word” of faith, which we are preaching.
So the "word" is near to us. If we listen closely with a desire to know God better, we will hear it being preached, we will find Bibles and books that comment on the Bible. Our desire to know God better will ultimately lead to an attraction to the teachings that make the most sense overall, those that let us know what God's will is, those that let us know the "mind of Christ." Sufficient accuracy of doctrine will follow from our love of God. In trying to imitate our God, we will be motivated to do good for others.
Thus spreads Christianity!

It sounds like you are saying that A.C. did not depart due to the uncommon traits that Witnesses are known for, but instead that A.C. departed for the common traits that Witnesses are known for, which you admit to be "doctrinal errors" and that such doctrinal errors have been perceived even by our own skeptics. These doctrinal errors area pushed constantly you say by JWI and others, and have caused others to stumble.
I can guess that you probably intended to say something else a little different from the above. But in any case, as the accusation of causing stumbling has been proposed, I would like to offer a more likely alternative about what causes this type of stumbling among us.
What you refer to as doctrinal error that I have proposed, might very well be doctrinal error. It is after all being proposed by an imperfect human with faults common to many of us. And the persons from whom I first learned of such doctrinal alternatives were also imperfect humans with faults common to many of us. However, what I have presented is nothing new, and has been presented for hundreds of years by Bible students and Bible commentators. More specifically, several of the most damaging points to some of our doctrines that I have presented were actually made by Russell himself and Rutherford himself. And of course the absolutely most damaging evidence against some of these doctrinal points was made thousands of years ago, because I have always tried to highlight where these points were made in the Bible itself. If I had to guess, I'd say that this is the point that causes the most problems, as evidenced by the fact that you had no Biblical answers to even one of the points of Biblical evidence.
I could turn around and say that it doesn't even matter who among us presents the Bible evidence for or against a certain belief. It could just as well have been presented as a question about who might have a Bible answer for the information that is presented over on some discussion site by Simon [forgot last name], or a blog by Doug Mason or a book by Carl Jonsson. These are points that we are all going to have to face head-on from the next generation of converts. And we are going to have to face the problem of many younger Witnesses who already know that a couple of the doctrines are on very problematic. "Fortunately" for the Watchtower Society, most current Witnesses and even most current converts don't care to concern themselves with the Scriptural evidence or lack thereof for certain doctrines. But unfortunately this means that the bulk of our publishers are also completely unable to explain the issue or even act like they ever noticed the problem. This will result in an unnecessary stagnation. I see some evidence of it already starting in several countries. 
So what really causes "stumbling" is not the person pointing out a potential problem, which is already pointed out in a hundred other places, going all the way back to the Bible writers themselves, but it's the dogmatic requirement of acceptance of some doctrines that cannot be defended by any of us. Here, on this forum, we have a chance to see if anyone can defend these, or see if are we destined to just accept without evidence. The latter is a dangerous position to be in. But it's also a self-inflicted injury. We need not teach any indefensible doctrines as dogma, we only need to teach them as a possibility that currently makes sense to many people, based on the secular world conditions which at least form a kind of parallel to the expectations that appear to be predicted Biblically. 

Sorry for the barrage of questions, but I'm interested in a few things. I take it you are leaving for the doctrinal reasons, and not because of how you have been treated. Do you have family among the Witnesses, any close friends still in the congregation? Are there nearby congregations meeting in the same hall or one nearby? Is it your intent to explain all of your doctrinal reasons to persons within the congregation? Have you already told the elders how you feel about "some" doctrinal errors. I mention that last one because I think you'll find that if you weigh the pros and cons you could still find more pros. I hope you will at least be willing to discuss some more of your concerns here, and directly with persons at Bethel. They will take a phone call on any subject, and although they will want to inform your local elders you can ask that they do not if you are not comfortable. Ask to speak directly with one of the GB Helpers whom you think might be receptive to a discussion. If you want to message me, I can give a couple of suggestions.

I'm trying to see your perspective here, and it made me go back and look through the threads that I remembered him in pretty well. I was surprised to notice that in the worst-case posts I had recalled, that he wasn't the one who started it. Others were being nasty, and calling him a "fool" before he responded in kind, but he was less apt to watch his vocabulary even if others were escalating. I also noticed that he was adamant that someone should try to respond to his point rather than constantly dodging and weaving and diverting. 
But I recall once seeing him refer to Arauna as foolish in a chronology topic, and either Tom or I let him know he was picking on "sweet old lady." (Sorry if that offends, Arauna.) He responded that it didn't matter how old anyone is, if they is going to spout nonsense with such conviction, then age is no excuse; she is going to hear where she is wrong. 
It's true that it's easier to ignore empathy and emotion in an online discussion if you are just here to defend your [strong] opinions against the [strong] opinions of others. I know a couple of people who are brilliant intellectually, but who are "on the [autism] spectrum" and have that exact trouble in real life, and they are always getting in trouble with others. I counseled one who has problems at work because he does OK with others in a meeting format, and one-on-one, but he writes scathing emails, and raises his voice with co-workers on the phone. I had also noticed that at meetings he did better when he looked at people's faces when disagreeing with them. I told him about this, as a way to help, but he said he grew up with "Asperger's" and would never look at a person's face when he talked to them. 
As a moderator I remember having to warn Alan a couple of times and sent that warning up the flagpole to the admins:

But who's counting? LOL
Unlike others who got warnings (who would dig in their heels and get suspended), AlanF would respond humbly and contritely and explain himself without making excuses.
 

No, he was not Billy The Kid. BTK was "Wally McNasty" as Pudgy called him. He is also George88, Cesar Chavez, Allen Smith, Alphonse, BTK59 [BillyTheKid59], Moise Racette, Dmitar, Boyle, etc, etc. I used to keep track, but I stopped at around 50 names. 
AlanF never used but that one handle here and evidently in several other forums around the Internet. And he would identify himself with his full name (if you asked) and not just hide behind the handle like some of us. LOL. I never followed him much into those topics about the Flood, the Ice Ages, Evolution, etc., because I'm pretty incompetent about those things and don't care to learn too much just yet about them. Maybe next year.
I don't know exactly what you mean by "his good posts." But I looked back through some chronology topics and found dozens of well written polite posts that merely shared information, and all the while he was getting called names by others here. There was some light-hearted bantering between him and scholarJW  as they had obviously had a long history of previous discussions elsewhere. But I see a lot of obnoxious posts to him before he responded. 
But I will start out with one of his absolute worst, because I thought that TTH's response was about the funniest and most memorable retort:
But that was after he had developed a kind of persona where he had developed a HISTORY with Cesar, and Arauna and TTH, and we already expected that these were just follow-ups from prior topics. But I go to his old topics in 2017, 2018 and 2019 and he was actually quite helpful in providing sources and resources for information. But a topic couldn't go for 10 pages before he started fighting back.
I do see one thing in his favor, in my opinion. Those attacking him were often just offering empty opposition and ignoring his points, or offering "tired" old standby arguments from Young Earth Creationists which he considered totally debunked scientifically. Even though he wasn't attacked with foul language, he was attacked with constant escalating levels of antagonism, and ad hominem stuff. But in the middle of his rather-too-direct responses to those, whenever someone asked a reasonable question, he was right back to giving emotionless straightforward facts to think about. These are the same facts we should be aware of as counter-arguments to, let's say, the Flood, should it ever come up. In the middle of all this bantering, notice how he goes right back to being an encyclopedic resource, even though we don't like the info. Here:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88407-creation-evolution-creative-days-age-of-the-earth-humanoid-fossils-great-flood/?do=findComment&comment=153844
It's too long to display the contents here, but his follow-up comment is also thought-provoking and I'll quote it in full:
That's not faith-building, of course. And it's not stuff I personally want to think about. But it's thought-provoking information and the kind of thing that's useful in a discussion forum, especially if others know how to respond and defend against it (especially the informative post above it with only the link).
 

Actually, I think you are engaging in exaggerated thinking again. I am surely one of many who is very concerned. But not all of us wish to speak up. It's not our nature. The kind of person who goes online to look at a forum such as this is probably already showing a level of concern about others, and the possibility that not all is right and that this could hurt others.
I'm sure there are several here who are also concerned about people like me, too, and they show it by speaking up to make sure that I don't go too far in pushing a view that could stumble others. But if you look closely, almost everyone here, even those most active in defensive of the GB, will show signs of not being 100 percent in agreement with all the current teachings. I'm sorry he's not here to defend himself, but even the famous Allen Smith spoke of ideas he had that he might send in to the Watchtower Society that would adjust a certain defense of their chronology. He even spoke of having addressed a question related to Mexico/Malawi to Raymond Franz about a claim in his book. So I think you are seeing different kinds of Witnesses on this forum that you weren't seeing in your congregation. Hopefully, if you were not satisfied with the level of effort in "making sure of all things" in your own congregation, you might find it in a loosely webbed community such as this. I see a lot more interest in scripture, prophecy, and world events here than I see in the average Witness in the Hall. I think a lot of the interest shows up as "crazy" speculation, but I'm sure that's how my own interests show up to others, too.
Indeed, it's probably a rare thing in most situations. But it has already happened under severe us vs. them circumstances. And I'm sure that as a group we are beyond the majority when it comes to trust of one another, the ability to work with other races, nationalities, and material classes.
(Romans 5:7) 7 For hardly would anyone die for a righteous man; though perhaps for a good man someone may dare to die. I know it's probably not quite as far ahead of others as some of us would like to think, but I've stayed with Witnesses all over the world that I barely knew, and vice versa. I've trusted many Witnesses with material things, and they with me. I hardly give a second thought to the idea of trusting another Witness. (Yes, I know. Please start another thread if you wish to bring up how trust can lead to child sexual abuse.)
I see an unusually successful attempt to show love to others among millions of other persons. It's refreshing to meet and greet others with so much in common, and invariably find people we know in common.
The Revelation book is still very much available on JW.ORG, WOL and the WT-LIB CD/DVD, also available online in desktop format. It's still the truth that these explanations are not considered infallible.
I'm sure much of it will prove false, just as most of everyone's explanation of Revelation in the entire world has proved false when the time for fulfillment of those explanations finally came. We just have to learn not to speculate unless we label it as speculation.
There is a difference in believing that you have a terrible and awesome responsibility, having been asked and assigned to work on the Governing Body, and "pretending" to be God's faithful slave. It's a traditional concept among most JWs that the GB represent the rest of the anointed and that this is Jehovah's only arrangement that makes sense. The types of persons on the GB who ask others to join them as replacements and helpers are exactly the types of persons who also think this is the only arrangement that makes sense - and that they shouldn't even consider the possibility of another arrangement because it would be 'doubting' Jehovah. So it never happens that they are actually 'pretending' they are just believing.

As George88 said, it's all just speculation. Charles Taze Russell thought that Jesus was "conceived" on or about December 25th, which was an early Bible Student rationale for celebrating Christmas. Russell thus held the belief that Jesus would have born around 9 months later, between late September and early October.
Currently, our publications place Jesus birthday around October 1st. 
Our publications also speculate that the "first Adam" was born around October 1st, or Tishri 1 of the year 4026 BCE.
*** it-1 p. 45 Adam ***
"That was in the year 4026 B.C.E. It was likely in the fall of the year, for mankind’s most ancient calendars began counting time in the autumn around October 1, or at the first new moon of the lunar civil year." [Tishri 1]
This is also true. A date as early as 5 or 6 BCE is speculated because the Bible says that Herod the Great was still alive. So far, all the evidence points to Herod's death in 4 B.C.E. See Wikipedia footnote resources for example.
Note that 30 years prior to the beginning of Tiberius' reign in 28 C.E. would take us to 3 B.C.E., but this was counting to the time of Jesus' baptism, and we only speculate that it was 3.5 years from his baptism to his death. Also, Luke said "about" 30 years of age. This is also one of the reasons many scholars put Jesus death closer to 30 C.E., not 33 C.E. 
Not to say that it is wrong, but the WTS publications have spent considerable effort trying to overcome the Herod (and Quirinius) evidence in order to maintain the claim that it was more likely around 2 B.C.E. It might be that 2 B.C.E. makes a better fit for the 70 weeks of years prophecy, but even here we begin counting that prophecy from a year that is about 10 years different from the secular evidence. 
*** it-1 pp. 463-467 Chronology ***
Jesus’ appearance as the Messiah came in the precise year foretold, perhaps about six months after John the Baptizer began his preaching in “the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar.” (Lu 1:36; 3:1, 2, 21-23) Since the Roman Senate named Tiberius emperor on September 15 of 14 C.E., his 15th year ran from the latter part of 28 C.E. well into 29 C.E. (See TIBERIUS.) The evidence, then, is that Jesus’ baptism and anointing took place in the fall of the year 29 C.E.
Since Jesus was “about thirty years old” at the time of his baptism in 29 C.E. (Lu 3:23), his birth took place 30 years earlier, or about the fall of the year 2 B.C.E. He was born during the reign of Caesar Augustus and the Syrian governorship of Quirinius. (Lu 2:1, 2) Augustus’ rule ran from 27 B.C.E. to 14 C.E. The Roman senator P. Sulpicius Quirinius was governor of Syria twice, the first time evidently coming after P. Quintilius Varus, whose term as legate of Syria ended in 4 B.C.E.
 
This conflicts with the evidence from secular chronology and historians of the time. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publius_Quinctilius_Varus
Later he went to govern Syria from 7–6 BC until 4 BC with four legions under his command, where he was known for his harsh rule and high taxes. The Jewish historian Josephus mentions the swift action of Varus against a messianic revolt in Judaea after the death of the Roman client king, Herod the Great, in 4 BC.
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quirinius
After the banishment of the ethnarch Herod Archelaus from the tetrarchy of Judea in AD 6, Quirinius was appointed legate governor of Syria, to which the province of Judaea had been added for the purpose of a census.[2]

Never heard it. But I have my doubts only because this same topic came up at Bethel many years ago around mid-1979 during the Bible reading of Job and a morning text comment by Brother Franz regarding the "yearly" feast days for each of Job's sons. The fact that he added the word "yearly" started the unfounded rumor. 
Then, of course, rumors swirled after the following statement made about celebrations with piñatas, allowed at the time only for Witnesses in Mexico but not California when I used to live in Southern California. That changed in 2003:
*** g03 9/22 p. 24 The Piñata—An Ancient Tradition ***
When considering whether to include a piñata at a social gathering, Christians should be sensitive to the consciences of others. (1 Corinthians 10:31-33) A main concern is, not what the practice meant hundreds of years ago, but how it is viewed today in your area. Understandably, opinions may vary from one place to another. Hence, it is wise to avoid turning such matters into big issues. The Bible says: “Let each one keep seeking, not his own advantage, but that of the other person.”—1 Corinthians 10:24.
This was the conclusion of an article that admitted the association between piñatas and Christmas traditions. Curiously, the article also noted that the Mexican piñata was not strictly related to Lent, Christmas, and the struggle against Satan, and blind faith, but had an older origin celebrating the BIRTHDAY of the war god Huitzilopochtli.
*** g03 9/22 pp. 22-24 The Piñata—An Ancient Tradition ***
Breaking the piñata became a custom on the first Sunday of Lent. It seems that at the beginning of the 16th century, Spanish missionaries brought the piñata to Mexico.
However, the missionaries may have been surprised (as we were) to find that the native people of Mexico already had a similar tradition. The Aztecs celebrated the birthday of Huitzilopochtli, their god of the sun and war...
As part of their strategy to evangelize the Indians, the Spanish missionaries ingeniously made use of the piñata to symbolize, among other things, the Christian’s struggle to conquer the Devil and sin. The traditional piñata was a clay pot covered with colored paper and given a star shape with seven tasseled points. These points were said to represent the seven deadly sins: greed, gluttony, sloth, pride, envy, wrath, and lust. Striking the piñata while blindfolded represented blind faith and willpower overcoming temptation or evil. . . .
The Piñata Today
Later, the piñata became part of the festivities of the posadas during the Christmas season and continues as such to this day. (A star-shaped piñata is used to represent the star that guided the astrologers to Bethlehem.) Breaking the piñata is also considered indispensable at birthday parties. . . .
We found that for many people in Mexico, the piñata has lost its religious significance and is considered by most to be just harmless fun. In fact, piñatas are used in Mexico on many festive occasions, not just for the posadas or for birthdays. 

Some pix I snapped earlier today although most of the small babies are hiding until feeding time. There are none in the first picture, but if you look closely at the second picture, you might be able to pick out about six of them.

When my wife and I were married in the early 80s, she always had a fish tank. So we continued the tradition with a 55 gallon tank for some pretty saltwater fish, but they eventually died after a few years. Pretty while they lasted and pretty expensive too to keep replacing them, so we changed to lightly brackish water for mostly cichlids.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_brackish_aquarium_fish_species
We also tried "kribensis" in the lightly brackish water, where they can live, but supposedly don't breed. But they did breed, and it was fun to watch literally dozens of little babies in a tank that also contained aggressive cichlids trying to get them and the parent kribensis opening up their mouths to sweep in all the babies and carry them off to safety in their mouth. We had so many babies that we had to keep giving hundreds up for adoption at a local fish store. Here's some info about them. 
Kribensis cichlids (Pelvicachromis pulcher) are small, colorful, and easy-to-care-for fish that are native to the African waters of Cameroon and southern Nigeria. They are known for their vibrant spawning dress, and their Latin name translates to "fish with a beautiful belly". During spawning season, the female kribensis has a cherry-red belly, while the lighter parts of her body turn bright yellow, and the colors on her fins are more pronounced.       These days we have had success with both a saltwater tank and a cichlid tank. But we never had any cichlids breed a brood of babies for several years. But my wife said we should no longer use tap water in the tank, not even filtered tap water. (My wife actually had a filter put in the basement so that the kitchen tap and refrigerator water is filtered, but she actually filters it again in a large "Burkey" filter for coffee and drinking.) I always thought it was too much trouble for tap water that I have tested for all kinds of chemicals and found to be just fine.   GETTING TO THE POINT, finally   But here's the reason I mention it. Just some weeks ago, we started replacing all water with bottled spring water and purified water until at least 35 gallons of the 55 have now replaced the old double-filtered tap water we had used previously. And "suddenly" after all these years, we are getting babies again, 3 overlapping generations have begun in just the last two months. And they grow fast.