Anna

Confidentiality: "There are two views held by state courts regarding confidentiality as it pertains to clergy privilege. In two-thirds of the states, a communication is considered confidential if made privately and not intended for further disclosure except to other persons present for the purpose of the communication. In one-third of the states, privileged communication means a communication made in confidence only to the minister, with no third person present".
Taken from: https://www.agfinancial.org/blog/bid103391church-liability-clergy-privilege-confidentiality-and-reporting/
 

I agree that this seems to be the goal of the updated policy. I'm happy for that. This is hopefully just an artifact of obsolete procedures.

Yes, I saw that too. (I just wanted to highlight the bit about what seems to be the two "types" of confidentiality"). 
You know my feelings on this anyway,  that I don't see the purpose of applying clergy privilege to the elders in the first place. I have a feeling though that this will become less of an issue, and hopefully will be just a formality, like "let's see what the law says in our state, but then do what our conscience tell us is the right thing to do to protect our children". 
 

That "third" person appears (to me) to be someone who helped write or translate a letter for the penitent, or who helped translate the person's voice or words from another language (including sign language).
It was interesting that the same site you quote also included:
It’s important to understand the difference between clergy privilege and the duty of confidentiality. Privilege simply means the information cannot be shared in court. The duty of confidentiality applies in all contexts and is an ethical matter every minister must navigate carefully. A minister’s duty of confidentiality is breached when they disclose confidences to anyone, anywhere. However, there may be times when it is appropriate to share confidential information, under extreme circumstances where people may be killed or severely injured. There are only nine cases in the history of this country where a minister was sued for breaching the duty of confidentiality. Of those, only three of the cases found the minister civilly liable for sharing confidences. In the other six cases, the courts concluded there was no duty under the circumstances for the minister to keep the confidentiality. So it can be concluded that ministers who decide to share confidential information should not in most cases be held personally liable from a legal standpoint, but they certainly won’t be held legally liable for not sharing. The exception to this rule is child abuse. In 41 states clergy are mandatory reporters of suspected or known child abuse.
It gives the impression that it's rare that a minister would ever get in trouble for revealing a confidentiality, but that they would never get in trouble for breaching the confidentiality of child abuse by letting the authorities know.
When these laws are invoked to say it was OK for Witness ministers to keep the child abuse secret, it's contrary to the spirit of these current laws about privilege and confidentiality in child abuse cases. They are intended to protect the child, and make sure that the minister does not get in trouble for revealing confidentiality. But we still seem to be asking for these rules to be invoked to protect the organization.

Confidentiality: "There are two views held by state courts regarding confidentiality as it pertains to clergy privilege. In two-thirds of the states, a communication is considered confidential if made privately and not intended for further disclosure except to other persons present for the purpose of the communication. In one-third of the states, privileged communication means a communication made in confidence only to the minister, with no third person present".
Taken from: https://www.agfinancial.org/blog/bid103391church-liability-clergy-privilege-confidentiality-and-reporting/
 

I think that is the general idea, and that we have seen the last of any pedophiles or child molesters getting away with their disgusting crime. Also, I think anyone thinking about doing anything disgusting to children will think twice about it. (However, there is the problem of new people coming in, they may not be aware of this strict child policy. But I do know that brothers who are being considered for appointment as elders are asked if there is anything in the past that would disqualify them from taking up this position).  I do not expect to see any more new cases in the coming years. I think if any cases come to light now, it will be from the past.
A few months ago I researched the Montana case quite extensively (I read the 400 or so page court transcript) and posted some of my "observations" in the Private JW Club. This was another classic instance of  "a dirty old step dad/grandad molests step children and then years later a step grandchild". (If memory serves right, I think this happened about 10 years ago). The step daughter with the grandchild knew that her step dad had molested her sister, and despite that, she brought her child (the grandchild) to his house for baby sitting because of convenience sake. I don't think this sat too well with the Jury, since it was evident she had knowingly put her child in harms way. Most of the members of that family were not very strong in the truth, and one of the victim's claim was thrown out of court as unreliable (basically she made some stuff up).
I have not followed up on the results of the lawsuit, so thanks for posting that. Anyway, what I remember from reading the transcript is that it all seemed to hang on clergy privilege law in Montana. You might already know this, but each state in USA has their own state laws. Some states have no clergy confidentiality, and others do. Then there is the issue of "what exactly is meant by "confidential". Does this mean no one but the one whom the confidential issue was disclosed to knows? If I remember right, what had to be established by the court was: whose definition of confidentiality was going to be used. Was it going to be the "Catholic" version, where only the priest knows, or was it going to be the particular religions version, in other words what that particular religion viewed as confidential. In the case of Jehovah's Witnesses, confidentiality is not the same as the Catholic version of confidentiality. As we know, when a JW judicial matter is said to be confidential, it means that more than just one elder gets to know the matter and in the case of CSA, advice is sought from the branch office as to reporting laws, i.e. what does the law for that particular state say about reporting? So here we already have perhaps more than 4 people who know about the matter. However, in this version of confidentiality, only those persons who are involved in handling the matter know. No one outside of that circle is privy to this information*. Also, another criteria for the Catholic version of confidentiality is that the penitent must approach the cleric, the confessional.  However, with the Witnesses, this is not always the case. The perpetrator is approached by the elders, as it was in this case. So, although I haven't read the report yet, it appears that the state of Montana recognizes a religion's interpretation of confidentiality, therefor they deemed the JW version as confidential information. So it wasn't because the elders were lying about confidentiality in order to deceive the court. The transcript clearly showed that the elders said how they proceeded, so the court was well aware the that more than one person knew, and that the elders on the judicial committee also called the branch for consultation. There was no deceit on the part of the elders.
* It just occurred to me that if no one outside the confidential circle was to know, then parents of other children were not to find out either. However, this is not the case now. When it is established that there may be concern over the behavior of someone in the congregation, then the parents of any children in that congregation are notified. So really, now there is no confidentiality for the sake of protecting the children. So, I wonder how we can even claim clergy penitence now, because of that. It seems this would be a moot issue with any new cases. It makes me see how in contrast, the other version of clergy penitence is a danger to children, because the priest must not tell anyone else. This is why I think it's stupid for any state or country to have this outdated religious law written in their secular law. Some states are trying to abolish this, but religious tradition is so closely intertwined with politics that it may never happen. Especially not in predominantly Catholic countries....

I think that is the general idea, and that we have seen the last of any pedophiles or child molesters getting away with their disgusting crime. Also, I think anyone thinking about doing anything disgusting to children will think twice about it. (However, there is the problem of new people coming in, they may not be aware of this strict child policy. But I do know that brothers who are being considered for appointment as elders are asked if there is anything in the past that would disqualify them from taking up this position).  I do not expect to see any more new cases in the coming years. I think if any cases come to light now, it will be from the past.
A few months ago I researched the Montana case quite extensively (I read the 400 or so page court transcript) and posted some of my "observations" in the Private JW Club. This was another classic instance of  "a dirty old step dad/grandad molests step children and then years later a step grandchild". (If memory serves right, I think this happened about 10 years ago). The step daughter with the grandchild knew that her step dad had molested her sister, and despite that, she brought her child (the grandchild) to his house for baby sitting because of convenience sake. I don't think this sat too well with the Jury, since it was evident she had knowingly put her child in harms way. Most of the members of that family were not very strong in the truth, and one of the victim's claim was thrown out of court as unreliable (basically she made some stuff up).
I have not followed up on the results of the lawsuit, so thanks for posting that. Anyway, what I remember from reading the transcript is that it all seemed to hang on clergy privilege law in Montana. You might already know this, but each state in USA has their own state laws. Some states have no clergy confidentiality, and others do. Then there is the issue of "what exactly is meant by "confidential". Does this mean no one but the one whom the confidential issue was disclosed to knows? If I remember right, what had to be established by the court was: whose definition of confidentiality was going to be used. Was it going to be the "Catholic" version, where only the priest knows, or was it going to be the particular religions version, in other words what that particular religion viewed as confidential. In the case of Jehovah's Witnesses, confidentiality is not the same as the Catholic version of confidentiality. As we know, when a JW judicial matter is said to be confidential, it means that more than just one elder gets to know the matter and in the case of CSA, advice is sought from the branch office as to reporting laws, i.e. what does the law for that particular state say about reporting? So here we already have perhaps more than 4 people who know about the matter. However, in this version of confidentiality, only those persons who are involved in handling the matter know. No one outside of that circle is privy to this information*. Also, another criteria for the Catholic version of confidentiality is that the penitent must approach the cleric, the confessional.  However, with the Witnesses, this is not always the case. The perpetrator is approached by the elders, as it was in this case. So, although I haven't read the report yet, it appears that the state of Montana recognizes a religion's interpretation of confidentiality, therefor they deemed the JW version as confidential information. So it wasn't because the elders were lying about confidentiality in order to deceive the court. The transcript clearly showed that the elders said how they proceeded, so the court was well aware the that more than one person knew, and that the elders on the judicial committee also called the branch for consultation. There was no deceit on the part of the elders.
* It just occurred to me that if no one outside the confidential circle was to know, then parents of other children were not to find out either. However, this is not the case now. When it is established that there may be concern over the behavior of someone in the congregation, then the parents of any children in that congregation are notified. So really, now there is no confidentiality for the sake of protecting the children. So, I wonder how we can even claim clergy penitence now, because of that. It seems this would be a moot issue with any new cases. It makes me see how in contrast, the other version of clergy penitence is a danger to children, because the priest must not tell anyone else. This is why I think it's stupid for any state or country to have this outdated religious law written in their secular law. Some states are trying to abolish this, but religious tradition is so closely intertwined with politics that it may never happen. Especially not in predominantly Catholic countries....

Confidentiality: "There are two views held by state courts regarding confidentiality as it pertains to clergy privilege. In two-thirds of the states, a communication is considered confidential if made privately and not intended for further disclosure except to other persons present for the purpose of the communication. In one-third of the states, privileged communication means a communication made in confidence only to the minister, with no third person present".
Taken from: https://www.agfinancial.org/blog/bid103391church-liability-clergy-privilege-confidentiality-and-reporting/
 

You do know, Allen Smith, that you are easily identifiable no matter what name you use. And you know why? Because you always use the same insulting tactics.

You do know, Allen Smith, that you are easily identifiable no matter what name you use. And you know why? Because you always use the same insulting tactics.

Your observation was, and I quote:
If you can't see how you just insulted everyone here, then I don't think there would ever be enough evidence in the world to convince you. And, by the way, I have never banned anyone, nor have I asked for anyone to be banned. If you already know this, then you are being dishonest. If you don't already know this, then I don't think there would ever be enough evidence in the world to convince you of this either.

You did not answer any of my previous questions regarding the forecourt if the temple...forecourt of the nations, forecourt of the women. 
The holy and most holy where the high priest and underpriests entered into existed but also the court where the ordinary men and women could also enter. "since the Law has a shadow of the good things to come"
It is hard to reason with someone who continually only repeats  the verses that suits their ideas .......
You quoted Isaiah 2:4 above : in the last days "the temple " ....... there is currently not a real mountain and a real temple any longer. So this obviously refers to a figurative temple in heaven which is " a shadow of the God things to come" based on the temple in Jerusalem.
Jesus only went "into" this heavenly  temple when he passed through the barrier of the  flesh at his  death and resurrection as a spiritual being.  This is what it means to be baptized in death of jesus - to die and be resurrected as a spiritual being - only then will you be a king and a priest.  You cannot be a king and priest while on earth - before going to heaven.
Then you quote other scriptures which refer to illustrations where Paul says that we must be clean and pure - not commit fornication -   because "we are being built into stones of the heavenly temple" -  "So rid yourselves of all badnessa and deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all backbiting"  this is how Peter starts the chapter you quote above. where he talks of his disciples being built into a spiritual temple. But it seems - you put only the  emphasis  on the word "temple" and not on the context around it...... and you keep requoting that you " are the temple" when is says you are being built into a temple.....
Take for example the scripture you quoted above: 1pet2: 5- 10.  It says " you are being built into a holy temple"  it does not say you are "already the temple." ..... so you misquoted this scripture.....
Another scripture you misquote to prove that you should be ruling and teaching now is from Isaiah but you forget  : The law of Zion is coming from the" heavens" - we have come before mount Zion....the heavenly Jerusalem......hebr 12:22..... law is not coming from those who believe they are already  the "temple"  here on earth..... And another point:  Zion was the seat of 'rulership' not the temple.  No wonder you feel you should already be 'ruling'. Do you see yourself as king already?   Because it is only in heaven where there will be kings or priests. Most scriptures describing the kings and priests describe them falling down before jehovah (in his presence in heaven) and praising him.
I call you out because you constantly misquote scriptures.  The bible clearly indicates that one receives a token of holy spirit  in your heart that you are of the anointed - spirit of jehovah. It is a token  "in advance of your inheritance" . It does not mean that you have already received the inheritance. eph1: 13 & 14.
The day of releasing from the flesh is not yet here....ep 4:30. 2 Corinthians 1:21 & 22 clearly indicates that the seal is a token of that which "is to come" - the spirit in our hearts.  
Yes you know that you will go to heaven but the bible clearly says that those who remain faithful to the end will be saved....... not that you are already saved.  The seal of holy spirit is a token of inheritance "in future" ....... and our bodies must remain pure to remain a stone of that future temple.  If you sin against that "token" holy spirit without repentance you forfeit that "promise".
 
 
To you they are stupid videos........ so I wonder who is really puffed up ?    
 

Recycling and environmental protection consumes a LOT of my thoughts ...
Every time I go to an auto parts store, and see a spray can of WD-40, I think of all the dashed hopes and dreams of the Dinosaurs.
The true test of an environmentalists is this:
If he could make it happen, would he bring back the dinosaurs ... and would it be covered by his automobile insurance policy.

You've been reading too much false information. Russell started the ball rolling but then he and his associates died. But it didn't end there, that is why I said that since then, some scriptures became clearer, and understood better. Knowledge is progressive as I am sure you will agree. It was during Rutherford's time that the Great crowd was identified. Until then it was thought all were going to heaven. When the scripture concerning the great crowd came to be understood, it brought a lot of joy to those who realised they were of the great crowd, because their desire was to live on earth. Everyone at that time had the opportunity for the first time to realise who they were. It must have been thrilling to say the least!
I am in no way saying Russell, Rutherford, or anyone after him didn't make mistakes or immediately got everything right. But I think that has always been your stumbling block. Your insistence that there must be NO mistakes and NO fault, despite knowing that all humans, including the anointed are imperfect, and that all those inspired and God fearing men in Bible times (Hebrew and Greek scriptures) made mistakes, some quite major ones. And still, God used them although he had to discipline them. Those who Jehovah loves he disciplines. If those who Jehovah loves didn't make mistakes, there would be no need for Jehovah to discipline them, would there?
The discipline from Jehovah is ongoing. Perhaps one of these reprimands have been regarding the CSA issue? Although as you know, this problem is complex and no one solution fits all. (You yourself were not sure how to proceed regarding one situation. You were worried about slander and concerns whether reporting to the Police was justified and the right thing to do. You were asking for opinion on here. You said it was because you did not have all the information. Well put yourself in the elders shoes. They do not always have all the information. Just like you, they are worried about barking up the wrong tree.) There have been recent and important clarifications regarding the reporting and handling of CSA. The biggest one is that ALL members of the congregation have been made aware of how to proceed, not just elders like in the past. Everyone can be on the same page now. That is a big improvement and a step forward. In my opinion it was discipline from Jehovah. I will address the other issues you mentioned in another post later....
No, of course I am not saying that. I said that now, the congregations are mostly made up of the earthly class, but that does not mean that the body of Christ (the anointed) has been disturbed, or has no significance just because most congregations have no anointed in them at all.

You've been reading too much false information. Russell started the ball rolling but then he and his associates died. But it didn't end there, that is why I said that since then, some scriptures became clearer, and understood better. Knowledge is progressive as I am sure you will agree. It was during Rutherford's time that the Great crowd was identified. Until then it was thought all were going to heaven. When the scripture concerning the great crowd came to be understood, it brought a lot of joy to those who realised they were of the great crowd, because their desire was to live on earth. Everyone at that time had the opportunity for the first time to realise who they were. It must have been thrilling to say the least!
I am in no way saying Russell, Rutherford, or anyone after him didn't make mistakes or immediately got everything right. But I think that has always been your stumbling block. Your insistence that there must be NO mistakes and NO fault, despite knowing that all humans, including the anointed are imperfect, and that all those inspired and God fearing men in Bible times (Hebrew and Greek scriptures) made mistakes, some quite major ones. And still, God used them although he had to discipline them. Those who Jehovah loves he disciplines. If those who Jehovah loves didn't make mistakes, there would be no need for Jehovah to discipline them, would there?
The discipline from Jehovah is ongoing. Perhaps one of these reprimands have been regarding the CSA issue? Although as you know, this problem is complex and no one solution fits all. (You yourself were not sure how to proceed regarding one situation. You were worried about slander and concerns whether reporting to the Police was justified and the right thing to do. You were asking for opinion on here. You said it was because you did not have all the information. Well put yourself in the elders shoes. They do not always have all the information. Just like you, they are worried about barking up the wrong tree.) There have been recent and important clarifications regarding the reporting and handling of CSA. The biggest one is that ALL members of the congregation have been made aware of how to proceed, not just elders like in the past. Everyone can be on the same page now. That is a big improvement and a step forward. In my opinion it was discipline from Jehovah. I will address the other issues you mentioned in another post later....
No, of course I am not saying that. I said that now, the congregations are mostly made up of the earthly class, but that does not mean that the body of Christ (the anointed) has been disturbed, or has no significance just because most congregations have no anointed in them at all.

Whether they are in heaven already as the WT believes, or still asleep in death, it makes no difference to the fact that ALL the anointed have to be in heaven before it can be said that they rule with Christ and are with him physically.
Yes. That is the practical view. That is why I don't think it can be important that they keep in touch with each other, because if it was, it would not be fair on the really old ones trying to work out all these technologies. 4Jah2me mentioned letter writing, well that too has it's limits because some of these older ones have trouble holding a pen (arthritis) or do not see very well anymore. Some younger ones (some are in their 50's) obviously would have no trouble with technology. But then where does that leave the older ones? We can already see that it is virtually impossible for ALL the anointed on earth to be in contact. So how fair would that be if only some were in contact? It would already nullify the idea that in order to be ONE body, they ALL have to be in contact with each other.

Whether they are in heaven already as the WT believes, or still asleep in death, it makes no difference to the fact that ALL the anointed have to be in heaven before it can be said that they rule with Christ and are with him physically.
Yes. That is the practical view. That is why I don't think it can be important that they keep in touch with each other, because if it was, it would not be fair on the really old ones trying to work out all these technologies. 4Jah2me mentioned letter writing, well that too has it's limits because some of these older ones have trouble holding a pen (arthritis) or do not see very well anymore. Some younger ones (some are in their 50's) obviously would have no trouble with technology. But then where does that leave the older ones? We can already see that it is virtually impossible for ALL the anointed on earth to be in contact. So how fair would that be if only some were in contact? It would already nullify the idea that in order to be ONE body, they ALL have to be in contact with each other.

I can't claim to speak for anyone else here, but it appears to me you are going beyond the scope of your reference as to what people are trying to say here or maybe it's a misunderstanding. Let's use your example below as a starting point:
So, let's say for example, your father asked you to go to bed early and get up early to walk the 2 miles to the box and get him the latest newspaper for tomorrow. Let's say he also promises that if you do that, he will give you a dollar. Great right? But is that dollar the only reason you would get the paper if you loved your father? No, you would do it out of love and respect for him. Still, since he also loves you, and recognizes that it may require no small measure of self-sacrifice, he offers to reward you with a dollar - even though he knows you love him and would probably do it for free. He sees that as both loving and fair on his part. In fact, he offers you that reward even before you actually perform the task. (He doesn't ask you to do it and say: "Maybe I'll give you something... we'll see." He offers it right up front.) So if you performed that task, it would be fair to "expect" he would give you a reward now, like he said he would, even though you might have done it for free. Jehovah does the same thing. He knows he asks a lot of us in facing the challenges of obedience in the face of Satan's vicious attacks and our own discouraging imperfections. He also knows that there will be individuals who would serve him out of love - and prove Satan a liar. We know he knew this even before he offered any rewards for obedience to such ones when he made the prophecy at Gen. 3:15 which assumed the obedience of his own Son as well as others. But Jehovah didn't leave it at that. He later made it clear that he would rightly show appreciation for obedience by rewarding such individuals. So it wouldn't be wrong to "expect" Jehovah to fulfill his promise of a reward, even if they would have done it for free. And Jehovah offers those rewards right up front. That however, does not support Satan's challenge that all humans only serve God for selfish gain or to save themselves. Jehovah knew Job was a faithful man and Jesus would be faithful under test as well - even before promising them anything. And he was right. He was also right to reward faithfulness of humans in the face of tests that they would not normally have expected (not part of the original deal) while perfect in the Garden of Eden. This was uncalled for. So obedience is an evidence of our love for God and reward is an evidence of God's love for us.

I don't think that we need to worry about the difference in priorities of various aspects of Jehovah's purpose. His thoughts are higher than ours, and it's not up to us to try to prioritize specific things that were not already prioritized for us in the Bible. In fact, all the items listed below are tied together so that we cannot really separate, for example, his  sanctification from the well-being of good angels and good people (and "all creation").
Jehovah's eternal purpose the outworking of His purpose by the Kingdom throughout mankind's history the vindication of His sovereignty the sanctification of Jehovah's name, reputation, righteousness, purpose the explanation for sin, suffering and death in this system the meaning and purpose of the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ the question of motivation for our Christian activities (works); whether reward (hope) or faith and love the central theme of love for both God and neighbor Each of these is tied together. Sometimes, for example. we (JWs) have concerned ourselves over the priority of Jehovah's vindication or his sovereignty. But when we look at the things that the Bible is concerned with prioritizing, these are not included.  Paul prioritized "love" over faith and hope. Jesus prioritized love of God and neighbor over all other commandments in the law. Jesus prioritized mercy over sacrifice.
The entire book of Romans, especially, ties all these together, and just a few examples will remind us of how Paul touched on almost every subject in the list above
(Romans 8:18-25) 18 For I consider that the sufferings of the present time do not amount to anything in comparison with the glory that is going to be revealed in us. 19 For the creation is waiting with eager expectation for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not by its own will, but through the one who subjected it, on the basis of hope 21 that the creation itself will also be set free from enslavement to corruption and have the glorious freedom of the children of God. 22 For we know that all creation keeps on groaning together and being in pain together until now. 23 Not only that, but we ourselves also who have the firstfruits, namely, the spirit, yes, we ourselves groan within ourselves while we are earnestly waiting for adoption as sons, the release from our bodies by ransom. 24 For we were saved in this hope; but hope that is seen is not hope, for when a man sees a thing, does he hope for it? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we keep eagerly waiting for it with endurance.
(Romans 5:1-15) . . .Therefore, now that we have been declared righteous as a result of faith, let us enjoy peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom we also have obtained access by faith into this undeserved kindness in which we now stand; and let us rejoice, based on hope of the glory of God. 3 Not only that, but let us rejoice while in tribulations, since we know that tribulation produces endurance; 4 endurance, in turn, an approved condition; the approved condition, in turn, hope, 5 and the hope does not lead to disappointment; because the love of God has been poured out into our hearts through the holy spirit, which was given to us. 6 For, indeed, while we were still weak, Christ died for ungodly men at the appointed time. 7 For hardly would anyone die for a righteous man; though perhaps for a good man someone may dare to die. 8 But God recommends his own love to us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. . . . 12 That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because they had all sinned—. 13 For sin was in the world before the Law, but sin is not charged against anyone when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death ruled as king from Adam down to Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the same way that Adam transgressed, who bears a resemblance to the one who was to come. 15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if by one man’s trespass many died, how much more did the undeserved kindness of God and his free gift by the undeserved kindness of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound to many!
Just a quick aside, but was this verse [Romans 5:13] ever used in support of the idea that the Watchtower had taught about persons destroyed at Sodom, for example, when we said that they would still have a chance for a resurrection?

Exactly! Thank you.
I meant any Tom, Dick and Harry 😀

You make it sound like fundamental teachings have changed. I wonder what would cause someone to actually say “this is not what I have signed up for”. Maybe you have a few ideas?
I think you are missing the whole point of the Christian congregation. Let’s say that today all the anointed communicated with each other, and each brought something to the table, and each agreed or disagreed on something, which teaching or thought would they decide to stick to? Well, I hate to tell you, but you’ve missed the bus by nearly 2000 years. It’s already been done with the apostles. It’s already all there in writing, in the scriptures for all to see. When the first Bible students got together under Russell, all they did was peel away years of false teachings of Christendom and exposed the grass roots of the Truth.There has really been nothing much new since then, only some views became clearer, and a few were seen as unnecessarily complicated (such as types and antitypes) and were removed altogether .
Paul said about the anointed in Ephesians  4:11 “And he gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelizers, some as shepherds and teachers, 12  with a view to the readjustment of the holy ones, for ministerial work, to build up the body of the Christ, until we all attain to the oneness of the faith and of the accurate knowledge of the Son of God, to being a full-grown man, attaining the measure of stature that belongs to the fullness of the Christ”.
Paul shows that some anointed were readjusted (trained) by the other anointed, so that ALL of them together  would attain to the oneness of the faith and accurate knowledge.  So it looks like not all the anointed were given equal tasks. Some were shepherds and teachers of the other anointed, some evidently not. But as an end result, they were all united.
That was the whole point of the Christian congregation, which in those days must have represented the body of Christ because it was composed exclusively of the anointed. Today, the congregation, or body of Christ, remains undisturbed, as Jesus is still their head and the head of the congregation. But it will not be made whole until all the anointed are in heaven with Christ. With the dwindling numbers of anointed, these congregations have been filled with those who are not members of the body of Christ, but there is unity, and it is still Christ’s congregation.  But somehow, you, and @Witness, imply that it is necessary that there should be a segregation of those who are anointed, and those who are not anointed. I cannot find that idea anywhere in the scripture.
So, what do you think your “true anointed” would bring to the table today that hasn’t already been established by Jesus, and recorded by those who wrote the Christian Greek scriptures?  I am sure you must have something in mind. Something that would help all of Jehovah’s Witnesses today.  What is it?
Was in the Jan 2016 WT, but here is the latest, Jan 2020 basically saying the same thing in par 7, as the 2016 WT
https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-study-january-2020/we-will-go-with-you/
It is not saying anointed ones cannot communicate with each other. It is saying that they wouldn't want to separate themselves from the rest of the congregation.
I am not concerned about it because the true anointed have no need to seek each other in that way. From what I have seen they enjoy the fellowship and mutual encouragement of brothers and sisters of the earthly class while still on earth, and they look forward to being united physically with Christ and the other anointed when they are finally in heaven. 
 
P.S. I need to comment on something you mentioned in one of your previous posts. You said:   "The Anointed are not the same as the Earthly Class. The sooner people get this through their heads the better for everyone. The Anointed are the BODY OF CHRIST. Do you not understand that God has a special use for them even now. Otherwise God could anoint a person when they were on their deathbed".
The problem with that is that the anointed do not fully become the body of Christ until they are in heaven. While on earth they have that hope. But they are still sinful just like the earthly class. Although they have been given the invitation to heaven, their being anointed is no guarantee that they will be there. They will only be there if they have endured faithful to the end. So yes, their final sealing happens when they are on their deathbed. (........ prove yourself faithful even to death, and I will give you the crown of life". Rev 2:10). Some who were anointed in Paul's day fell away, the same can happen today. Paul, when he knew his death was imminent was able to say: "I have fought the fine fight, I have run the race to the finish, I have observed the faith.  From this time on, there is reserved for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will give me as a reward in that day" 

It seems to be a battle between God and Satan that has to be settled once and for all time.  
Humans and angels are onlookers, but angels have greater knowledge of what its all about. 
God has to show once for all time that He has the right to rule in Heaven and over the Earth. 
So, humans are almost like pawns in a chess game. Humans can be resurrected so the death of humans is not so important to God. 
God really does have to prove His right to rule, and to prove He has the power to complete the task. The fact of continuing the human race is probably secondary but to have a human race that will willingly serve Him will be part of the defeat of Satan. 
 

You make it sound like fundamental teachings have changed. I wonder what would cause someone to actually say “this is not what I have signed up for”. Maybe you have a few ideas?
I think you are missing the whole point of the Christian congregation. Let’s say that today all the anointed communicated with each other, and each brought something to the table, and each agreed or disagreed on something, which teaching or thought would they decide to stick to? Well, I hate to tell you, but you’ve missed the bus by nearly 2000 years. It’s already been done with the apostles. It’s already all there in writing, in the scriptures for all to see. When the first Bible students got together under Russell, all they did was peel away years of false teachings of Christendom and exposed the grass roots of the Truth.There has really been nothing much new since then, only some views became clearer, and a few were seen as unnecessarily complicated (such as types and antitypes) and were removed altogether .
Paul said about the anointed in Ephesians  4:11 “And he gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelizers, some as shepherds and teachers, 12  with a view to the readjustment of the holy ones, for ministerial work, to build up the body of the Christ, until we all attain to the oneness of the faith and of the accurate knowledge of the Son of God, to being a full-grown man, attaining the measure of stature that belongs to the fullness of the Christ”.
Paul shows that some anointed were readjusted (trained) by the other anointed, so that ALL of them together  would attain to the oneness of the faith and accurate knowledge.  So it looks like not all the anointed were given equal tasks. Some were shepherds and teachers of the other anointed, some evidently not. But as an end result, they were all united.
That was the whole point of the Christian congregation, which in those days must have represented the body of Christ because it was composed exclusively of the anointed. Today, the congregation, or body of Christ, remains undisturbed, as Jesus is still their head and the head of the congregation. But it will not be made whole until all the anointed are in heaven with Christ. With the dwindling numbers of anointed, these congregations have been filled with those who are not members of the body of Christ, but there is unity, and it is still Christ’s congregation.  But somehow, you, and @Witness, imply that it is necessary that there should be a segregation of those who are anointed, and those who are not anointed. I cannot find that idea anywhere in the scripture.
So, what do you think your “true anointed” would bring to the table today that hasn’t already been established by Jesus, and recorded by those who wrote the Christian Greek scriptures?  I am sure you must have something in mind. Something that would help all of Jehovah’s Witnesses today.  What is it?
Was in the Jan 2016 WT, but here is the latest, Jan 2020 basically saying the same thing in par 7, as the 2016 WT
https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-study-january-2020/we-will-go-with-you/
It is not saying anointed ones cannot communicate with each other. It is saying that they wouldn't want to separate themselves from the rest of the congregation.
I am not concerned about it because the true anointed have no need to seek each other in that way. From what I have seen they enjoy the fellowship and mutual encouragement of brothers and sisters of the earthly class while still on earth, and they look forward to being united physically with Christ and the other anointed when they are finally in heaven. 
 
P.S. I need to comment on something you mentioned in one of your previous posts. You said:   "The Anointed are not the same as the Earthly Class. The sooner people get this through their heads the better for everyone. The Anointed are the BODY OF CHRIST. Do you not understand that God has a special use for them even now. Otherwise God could anoint a person when they were on their deathbed".
The problem with that is that the anointed do not fully become the body of Christ until they are in heaven. While on earth they have that hope. But they are still sinful just like the earthly class. Although they have been given the invitation to heaven, their being anointed is no guarantee that they will be there. They will only be there if they have endured faithful to the end. So yes, their final sealing happens when they are on their deathbed. (........ prove yourself faithful even to death, and I will give you the crown of life". Rev 2:10). Some who were anointed in Paul's day fell away, the same can happen today. Paul, when he knew his death was imminent was able to say: "I have fought the fine fight, I have run the race to the finish, I have observed the faith.  From this time on, there is reserved for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will give me as a reward in that day" 

You make it sound like fundamental teachings have changed. I wonder what would cause someone to actually say “this is not what I have signed up for”. Maybe you have a few ideas?
I think you are missing the whole point of the Christian congregation. Let’s say that today all the anointed communicated with each other, and each brought something to the table, and each agreed or disagreed on something, which teaching or thought would they decide to stick to? Well, I hate to tell you, but you’ve missed the bus by nearly 2000 years. It’s already been done with the apostles. It’s already all there in writing, in the scriptures for all to see. When the first Bible students got together under Russell, all they did was peel away years of false teachings of Christendom and exposed the grass roots of the Truth.There has really been nothing much new since then, only some views became clearer, and a few were seen as unnecessarily complicated (such as types and antitypes) and were removed altogether .
Paul said about the anointed in Ephesians  4:11 “And he gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelizers, some as shepherds and teachers, 12  with a view to the readjustment of the holy ones, for ministerial work, to build up the body of the Christ, until we all attain to the oneness of the faith and of the accurate knowledge of the Son of God, to being a full-grown man, attaining the measure of stature that belongs to the fullness of the Christ”.
Paul shows that some anointed were readjusted (trained) by the other anointed, so that ALL of them together  would attain to the oneness of the faith and accurate knowledge.  So it looks like not all the anointed were given equal tasks. Some were shepherds and teachers of the other anointed, some evidently not. But as an end result, they were all united.
That was the whole point of the Christian congregation, which in those days must have represented the body of Christ because it was composed exclusively of the anointed. Today, the congregation, or body of Christ, remains undisturbed, as Jesus is still their head and the head of the congregation. But it will not be made whole until all the anointed are in heaven with Christ. With the dwindling numbers of anointed, these congregations have been filled with those who are not members of the body of Christ, but there is unity, and it is still Christ’s congregation.  But somehow, you, and @Witness, imply that it is necessary that there should be a segregation of those who are anointed, and those who are not anointed. I cannot find that idea anywhere in the scripture.
So, what do you think your “true anointed” would bring to the table today that hasn’t already been established by Jesus, and recorded by those who wrote the Christian Greek scriptures?  I am sure you must have something in mind. Something that would help all of Jehovah’s Witnesses today.  What is it?
Was in the Jan 2016 WT, but here is the latest, Jan 2020 basically saying the same thing in par 7, as the 2016 WT
https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-study-january-2020/we-will-go-with-you/
It is not saying anointed ones cannot communicate with each other. It is saying that they wouldn't want to separate themselves from the rest of the congregation.
I am not concerned about it because the true anointed have no need to seek each other in that way. From what I have seen they enjoy the fellowship and mutual encouragement of brothers and sisters of the earthly class while still on earth, and they look forward to being united physically with Christ and the other anointed when they are finally in heaven. 
 
P.S. I need to comment on something you mentioned in one of your previous posts. You said:   "The Anointed are not the same as the Earthly Class. The sooner people get this through their heads the better for everyone. The Anointed are the BODY OF CHRIST. Do you not understand that God has a special use for them even now. Otherwise God could anoint a person when they were on their deathbed".
The problem with that is that the anointed do not fully become the body of Christ until they are in heaven. While on earth they have that hope. But they are still sinful just like the earthly class. Although they have been given the invitation to heaven, their being anointed is no guarantee that they will be there. They will only be there if they have endured faithful to the end. So yes, their final sealing happens when they are on their deathbed. (........ prove yourself faithful even to death, and I will give you the crown of life". Rev 2:10). Some who were anointed in Paul's day fell away, the same can happen today. Paul, when he knew his death was imminent was able to say: "I have fought the fine fight, I have run the race to the finish, I have observed the faith.  From this time on, there is reserved for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will give me as a reward in that day" 

Is it wrong to serve God for a reward? It depends on what we consider to be a reward. If it is purely for selfish reasons, for what personal benefit we can get, regardless of how it affects others, yes it would be wrong. (That's why looking to dates can be a dangerous game - ((although it can serve as a net to catch pretenders who only serve God for personal benefit)).  But consider please the example Jesus set as described at Hebrews 12:2: "as we look intently at the Chief Agent and Perfecter of our faith, Jesus. For the joy that was set before him he endured a torture stake, despising shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God." As the comments in the Study Bible correctly state: "What was 'the joy that was set before (Jesus)' for which he endured a torture stake"?  It was the joy of seeing what his ministry would accomplish - including the sanctification of Jehovah's name, the vindication of God's sovereignty, and the ransoming of the human family from death." (That in itself was a reward to Jesus). BUT, "he also looked ahead to the reward of ruling as King and serving as High Priest to the benefit of mankind." Was that selfish of Jesus? No. Not when you consider that it was God himself who held out the hope Jesus had. 
So we can see that it is not necessarily a question of only one or the other. Even for those who love Jehovah and feel that obedience is it's own reward, Jehovah himself has always rewarded faithfulness and seen it proper to do so. In fact he often gave the the choice to reap the rewards of obedience or disobedience - whether "blessing or malediction." 
At 1 Cor. 15:32, under inspiration Paul stated: "If like other men, I have fought with wild beasts at Ephesus, of what good is it to me? If the dead are not to be raised up, 'let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we are to die." So Paul was saying that if there was no reward for obedience in the form of a resurrection, why not live it up? If death ends it all, living for the present makes perfect sense." (comment from Study Bible). Again, we recall that Jehovah inspired Paul to write those words and it is historically true that Jehovah has always shown appreciation for and rewarded obedience. Even in the Garden of Eden, our first human parents had a wonderful prospect held out to them - everlasting life in perfection if they were obedient. Such obedience also shows we love God and respect him. 1 John 5:3 "for this is what the love of God means, that we observe his commandments..." Study Bible comments: "As described in the Bible, love for God is much more than a feeling In fact, although the feeling of love for Jehovah is essential, that feeling is just the beginning of real love for him. An apple seed is essential to the development of a fruit-bearing apple tree. If you wanted an apple, however, would you be content if someone merely handed you an apple seed? Hardly! Similarly, a feeling of love for Jehovah God is only a start. The bible teaches: "This is what the love of God means, that we observe his commandments;..." To be genuine, love for God must bear fine fruit. It must be expressed in actions." (Matt. 7:16-20)
 So a romanticized version of what it means to love God actually leaves God out of the picture. It leaves out how he views obedience and how he is ready, willing and able to reward obedience - and how it is proper for him to do so (as a God of love and justice). Heb. 11:6: "...without faith it is impossible to please God well, for whoever approaches God must believe that he is and that he becomes the rewarder of those earnestly seeking him." The comments in the Study Bible for Hebrews 11:6 are of interest here - very pertinent.