Anna

Sorry that I've been too busy to respond earlier. Does the WT really lead us into diminishing Jesus? I referenced the scriptures you had cited in the WT library and found that the number of "occurrences" referring to those scriptures was as follows:
John 5:22 (166); Psalm 2:12 (238); Rev. 5:11-13 (414); Rev. 7:10 (1184); Phil. 2:8-11 (1561); Rev. 5:8 (167); Heb. 1:6 (156) for a total of three thousand, eight hundred and eighty-six times those 7 scriptures pertaining to Jesus were referred to. True, this included oblique references in that they didn't directly relate to the specific aspect of this conversation, but there were also many that were. Although I will include a partial quote from just one of those thousands of WT references, it should give us a better idea of what they actually teach. The question also worth asking is: When it comes to assigning honour, praise and glory, what example did Jesus himself set for all Christians? Anyway, below is just a smidgen of what WT readers know to expect: (I am putting this quote at the end so if you don't have the time to read it all you don't have to, and won't include the many scriptures ((most/all from the New Testament)) included to save space):
 "Now we come to the matter of honoring Jesus Christ. That his followers are obligated to honor him can be seen from his words at John 5:22, 23: 'For the Father judges no one at all, but he has committed all the judging to the Son, in order that all may honor the Son just as they honour the Father. He that does not honor the Son does not honour the Father who sent him." Since Christ's resurrection, Jehovah has honored his Son to an even greater degree, 'crowning him with glory and honour for having suffered death.' Basically, we have reasons to honor Jesus both because of who he is and because of what he has done. 
  Jesus Christ deserves our honor because he, as the Logos, or Word, is Jehovah's communicator pare excellence...he is the only one directly created by Jehovah. In addition, 'all things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.'...Surely, the fact that Jesus in his prehuman existence had the marvellous privilege of sharing with Jehovah God in creation makes him worthy of great honor...
  Jesus Christ further deserves honor because he is Jehovah's chief angel, or archangel...The archangel Michael fights in behalf of God's Kingdom, taking the lead in cleansing the heavens of Satan and his demonic hordes...
  Not only does Jesus Christ deserve to be honored because of who he is but he also deserves our honor because of what he has done...(He) remained 'loyal, guileless, separated from sinners' in spite of all that the Devil could bring upon him in the way of temptations or persecutions...And because of his keeping sinless integrity, Jesus vindicated his heavenly Father as the rightful universal Sovereign and proved the Devil to be a base and gross liar... 
  Jesus Christ deserves our honor, not only because he lived a perfect, sinless life but also because he was a good man, an unselfish, self-sacrificing man. He tirelessly ministered to the spiritual and physical needs of the people...What suffering he was willing to undergo in doing his Father's will! 
  Jesus also deserves our honor because of the king example he set for us in honouring his heavenly Father...by his words and deeds...Therefore, at the end of his earthly ministry, Jesus could rightly say in prayer to his heavenly Father: 'I have glorified you on the earth, having finished the work you have given me to do.'
  What He Has Done for US
  How greatly Jesus Christ is deserving of our honor because of all he has accomplished for us! He died for our sins so that we can be reconciled to Jehovah God...Thus his death made possible all that the Kingdom will accomplish for us humans.
  Jesus Christ is also deserving of honor because, as the Great Teacher, he has perfectly revealed his Father's will and personality to us. ...
  The apostle Paul well summarized Jesus' honor-deserving course when he wrote: 'Although he was existing in God's form (he) gave no consideration to a seizure, namely that he should be equal to God...
How Can We Honor the Son?
  We do so by exercising faith in his ransom sacrifice, and we prove that faith by taking the necessary steps of repentance, conversion , dedication, and baptism. By coming to Jehovah in prayer in Jesus' name, we honor Jesus. We further honor him when we heed his words: 'If anyone wants to come after me, let him disown himself and pick up his torture stake and continually follow me. We honor Jesus Christ when we heed his instructions to keep seeking first God's Kingdom and his righteousness. and we honor him when we heed his command to share in the disciple-making work. Again, we honor Jesus when we manifest the brotherly love he said would identify all his true followers.
  Further, we bring honor to the Son by taking upon ourselves his name, calling ourselves Christians, and then by living up to that name by our fine conduct...And certainly, when we annually celebrate the Memorial of Christ's death, we accord him special honor..."
  

Personally, I would without hesitation say more than the elders, organization and Governing Body - and I doubt you would get any JW disagreeing with that regardless of what you may think. Easy enough question to ask though. I'm just one JW. There are plenty of others you could ask. As for how much we should love Jesus compared to Jehovah God his Father and the Creator of all, I would say it would be best to adopt Jesus' own viewpoint on that. (I don't need to tell you what his answer would be). I would agree that it's very possible that some JW's give less attention and respect to Jesus than he deserves - although that could be said of individuals found in any Christian religion and I am not in a position to quantify percentages with polls to substantiate that. 
Well I don't need to tell you that most Christian religions "worship" Jesus. So the the love they should be showing Jehovah as God they direct to Jesus. Rom. 10:2 "For I bear witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to accurate knowledge. 3) For because of not knowing the righteousness of God but seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God." It's also fair to say that some religions in particular, are very much based on emotion and hyperbole. John 4:22 "You worship who you do not know; we worship what we know..." It can be VERY difficult to carry on a Bible-based discussion with people who place their emotional feelings of being "special," to Jesus above what the Bible clearly states. That is why these "lovers of Jesus" are prepared to go to war and kill their fellow believers in Jesus' name. "Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition" was one well known song. 
Agreed. I would also mention however, that running around saying "I love Jesus,"  "praise Jesus" and "Hallelujah" (which most Christians don't even know the meaning of), is not in of itself an indication that they do in fact love Jesus. If they did love Jesus, they would be obedient to his commands as recorded in the Bible. This is one indication that JW's do in fact produce the fruitage showing they love Jesus as opposed to just emotional hot air. Ask yourself: Who would you rather be facing across the border in a time of war? A JW or any other so-called lover of Jesus? 

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

The question was basically about whether a person should do their own research but then just keep quiet about it if they proved to themselves something different than they had accepted at baptism. I thought your answer was excellent.
Those of us who remain in the organization after researching the teachings on 1914 are remaining because this doctrine, even if completely wrong, does not negate the good work the organization is doing for the world in focusing on both the current and future benefits of God's kingdom, taking a stand on God's side, and offering the opportunity to join in with others who also want to share that message with the whole world. Were Peter, James and John still being used in the congregations around Jerusalem and Judea, even though they still had long-standing prejudices and misunderstandings about God's purpose for the Gentiles? (Acts 15 & 21; Gal 1 & 2) Of course they were!
Did teachings coming from those same men stumble others? (Galatians, Barnabas, etc.) According to Paul, people were definitely stumbled by the influence these brothers, but Paul continued to work with them and cooperate with them. Our decision to continue working with the Witnesses should also still make sense if we believe there is no other group that teaches what we believe about various Bible teachings that are important to us (neutrality, conscientious objection two war, teachings about morality/Trinity/hell/soul, etc.).
Also, there are those who might think that it is hypocritical to find something wrong in our personal research and then merely keep quiet about it. I'd say that we would be wrong to bring it up in the context of our congregations. This might cause divisions, and might influence people to choose a side based on "human factors" (who debates the best, who "sounds" more loyal, who "sounds" more intelligent, who has more human authority, the number of people who agree or disagree, etc., etc.)
But, if we recall Matthew 18, the most important thing is to go to the source of the issue. It's not the people in our congregation, or even the elders in our congregation. They are not the source of this teaching. In this case we should go to the brothers who are the publishers and promoters of this teaching, to see what they say in defense of the teaching. As you say, we may not be satisfied, or find that they don't answer, or won't answer, or can't answer. Then we can make up our mind how we might still try to absolve our own conscience on the matter, or make a defense of our own faith on the matter. But we still need NOT go to our local congregation about it, or try to find persons there who will side with us. This will still create unnecessary contentions. It will make it appear that it is a matter of personal ego to be right or prove others wrong. If it were a matter of life and death, this might be different.
If this is the same argument that John Butler often made, then the point is that the context is only about the Hebrew Scriptures, not the Christian Greek Scriptures, much of which had not been written yet. This is already mentioned however in our own publications:
*** ws17 December p. 16 Parents—Help Your Children Become “Wise for Salvation” ***
“YOU HAVE KNOWN THE HOLY WRITINGS”
3 The apostle Paul first visited Lystra in the year 47. This is probably when Timothy, who may have been a teenager, learned about Jesus’ teachings. He applied what he learned, and two years later he began traveling with Paul. About 16 years after that, Paul wrote to Timothy: “Continue in the things that you learned and were persuaded to believe, knowing from whom you learned them and that from infancy you have known the holy writings [the Hebrew Scriptures], which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” (2 Timothy 3:14, 15) Notice that Paul said that Timothy (1) knew the holy writings, (2) was persuaded to believe the things he learned, and (3) became wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. . . . Timothy knew the Hebrew Scriptures “from infancy,” that is, from the time he was very young
The addition of the term "[the Hebrew Scriptures]" is in the original quotation, even though it was put in brackets. However, the Watchtower's emphasis has always been on the fact that since most of these additional book by apostles and other mature men had already been written that the reference is to all the books both OT and NT.
*** w63 11/1 pp. 652-653 pars. 14-15 The Book of “Everlasting Good News” is Beneficial ***
Consequently, when Paul wrote his final letter to Timothy and said: “All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial,” there were doubtless twenty-one inspired books, all addressed to Christians, in addition to the thirty-nine books of the Hebrew Scriptures. (2 Tim. 3:16) Today Paul’s expression “All Scripture is inspired of God” includes the writings of Jude and John, for these also were written under inspiration of God’s holy spirit and were added to the collection of inspired Christian writings, to complete the inspired Holy Bible.
15 Today, therefore, “all Scripture” includes the sixty-six books of the Bible, as it is now divided up in order.
 

I am continuing from your earlier post.....
Well it depends on what it is and how they feel about it. If a person disagrees with the teaching of 1914 for example, then he has to decide how important that is to him. He can write to the branch, as many have done. If they don't like the reply, or don't agree with it, they have to again decide how important it is to them. Not everything is black and white and there may be something that you or they have overlooked. Is 1914 a life or death question? In my opinion it isn't, but in someone else's opinion it might be. And they may feel that they cannot continue being JW because of it. We don't have to go around telling everyone, because it is a personal opinion. Even if we can find "proof" that we are right, we should respect the opinions of others, just like we would like others to respect out opinion. With something like 1914, we really need to decide the importance of it in light of the big picture. If JW'S have got 1914 wrong, how does that affect how we view everything else we have learned from that same source? Remember, mistakes will be made. I read some of your earlier posts where you are actually defending what you have learned from JWs (God and Jesus being separate, there being no fiery hell, the promise of an earthly paradise, the last days etc.)
It is true, we can have our own opinion on what a scripture means. But usually that is an exception if the scripture is read in context of the chapter AND the whole Bible. A few scriptures can be ambiguous though. Hopefully, before we signed up to become one of JWs we have already cleared that up and accepted the interpretation of JWs.
How do you suggest they should be in contact earth wide?
Yes, you are making a good point there. However in practice, as you know, most anointed are scattered throughout the earth. In the days before the internet communication, to be of any value, would have been difficult. Today, this is surely a lot easier, but not everyone is able to communicate via the internet. Not only that, and this is the point I was trying to make earlier, how would one know if someone was the "true anointed". I joked, and said any True Tom Harley could claim they were anointed. Can you imagine how that would work? It could become a total mess if some "false anointed" communicated whatever they liked. How would one sift what was genuine from what wasn't genuine?  
The GB is not concerned if the anointed communicate with each other., It is everyone's right to communicate with all of the brotherhood. The GB is concerned that the whole brotherhood remains united.
 

I am continuing from your earlier post.....
Well it depends on what it is and how they feel about it. If a person disagrees with the teaching of 1914 for example, then he has to decide how important that is to him. He can write to the branch, as many have done. If they don't like the reply, or don't agree with it, they have to again decide how important it is to them. Not everything is black and white and there may be something that you or they have overlooked. Is 1914 a life or death question? In my opinion it isn't, but in someone else's opinion it might be. And they may feel that they cannot continue being JW because of it. We don't have to go around telling everyone, because it is a personal opinion. Even if we can find "proof" that we are right, we should respect the opinions of others, just like we would like others to respect out opinion. With something like 1914, we really need to decide the importance of it in light of the big picture. If JW'S have got 1914 wrong, how does that affect how we view everything else we have learned from that same source? Remember, mistakes will be made. I read some of your earlier posts where you are actually defending what you have learned from JWs (God and Jesus being separate, there being no fiery hell, the promise of an earthly paradise, the last days etc.)
It is true, we can have our own opinion on what a scripture means. But usually that is an exception if the scripture is read in context of the chapter AND the whole Bible. A few scriptures can be ambiguous though. Hopefully, before we signed up to become one of JWs we have already cleared that up and accepted the interpretation of JWs.
How do you suggest they should be in contact earth wide?
Yes, you are making a good point there. However in practice, as you know, most anointed are scattered throughout the earth. In the days before the internet communication, to be of any value, would have been difficult. Today, this is surely a lot easier, but not everyone is able to communicate via the internet. Not only that, and this is the point I was trying to make earlier, how would one know if someone was the "true anointed". I joked, and said any True Tom Harley could claim they were anointed. Can you imagine how that would work? It could become a total mess if some "false anointed" communicated whatever they liked. How would one sift what was genuine from what wasn't genuine?  
The GB is not concerned if the anointed communicate with each other., It is everyone's right to communicate with all of the brotherhood. The GB is concerned that the whole brotherhood remains united.
 

I am continuing from your earlier post.....
Well it depends on what it is and how they feel about it. If a person disagrees with the teaching of 1914 for example, then he has to decide how important that is to him. He can write to the branch, as many have done. If they don't like the reply, or don't agree with it, they have to again decide how important it is to them. Not everything is black and white and there may be something that you or they have overlooked. Is 1914 a life or death question? In my opinion it isn't, but in someone else's opinion it might be. And they may feel that they cannot continue being JW because of it. We don't have to go around telling everyone, because it is a personal opinion. Even if we can find "proof" that we are right, we should respect the opinions of others, just like we would like others to respect out opinion. With something like 1914, we really need to decide the importance of it in light of the big picture. If JW'S have got 1914 wrong, how does that affect how we view everything else we have learned from that same source? Remember, mistakes will be made. I read some of your earlier posts where you are actually defending what you have learned from JWs (God and Jesus being separate, there being no fiery hell, the promise of an earthly paradise, the last days etc.)
It is true, we can have our own opinion on what a scripture means. But usually that is an exception if the scripture is read in context of the chapter AND the whole Bible. A few scriptures can be ambiguous though. Hopefully, before we signed up to become one of JWs we have already cleared that up and accepted the interpretation of JWs.
How do you suggest they should be in contact earth wide?
Yes, you are making a good point there. However in practice, as you know, most anointed are scattered throughout the earth. In the days before the internet communication, to be of any value, would have been difficult. Today, this is surely a lot easier, but not everyone is able to communicate via the internet. Not only that, and this is the point I was trying to make earlier, how would one know if someone was the "true anointed". I joked, and said any True Tom Harley could claim they were anointed. Can you imagine how that would work? It could become a total mess if some "false anointed" communicated whatever they liked. How would one sift what was genuine from what wasn't genuine?  
The GB is not concerned if the anointed communicate with each other., It is everyone's right to communicate with all of the brotherhood. The GB is concerned that the whole brotherhood remains united.
 

I am continuing from your earlier post.....
Well it depends on what it is and how they feel about it. If a person disagrees with the teaching of 1914 for example, then he has to decide how important that is to him. He can write to the branch, as many have done. If they don't like the reply, or don't agree with it, they have to again decide how important it is to them. Not everything is black and white and there may be something that you or they have overlooked. Is 1914 a life or death question? In my opinion it isn't, but in someone else's opinion it might be. And they may feel that they cannot continue being JW because of it. We don't have to go around telling everyone, because it is a personal opinion. Even if we can find "proof" that we are right, we should respect the opinions of others, just like we would like others to respect out opinion. With something like 1914, we really need to decide the importance of it in light of the big picture. If JW'S have got 1914 wrong, how does that affect how we view everything else we have learned from that same source? Remember, mistakes will be made. I read some of your earlier posts where you are actually defending what you have learned from JWs (God and Jesus being separate, there being no fiery hell, the promise of an earthly paradise, the last days etc.)
It is true, we can have our own opinion on what a scripture means. But usually that is an exception if the scripture is read in context of the chapter AND the whole Bible. A few scriptures can be ambiguous though. Hopefully, before we signed up to become one of JWs we have already cleared that up and accepted the interpretation of JWs.
How do you suggest they should be in contact earth wide?
Yes, you are making a good point there. However in practice, as you know, most anointed are scattered throughout the earth. In the days before the internet communication, to be of any value, would have been difficult. Today, this is surely a lot easier, but not everyone is able to communicate via the internet. Not only that, and this is the point I was trying to make earlier, how would one know if someone was the "true anointed". I joked, and said any True Tom Harley could claim they were anointed. Can you imagine how that would work? It could become a total mess if some "false anointed" communicated whatever they liked. How would one sift what was genuine from what wasn't genuine?  
The GB is not concerned if the anointed communicate with each other., It is everyone's right to communicate with all of the brotherhood. The GB is concerned that the whole brotherhood remains united.
 

It sounds like what you want is democracy in your place of worship—theocracy by the people, as though ‘if the people come to believe it, it must mean that God has so influenced them.’ It doesn’t work that way. 
“All your people will be taught by Jehovah,“ the verse says. It does not say that they will be taught by themselves. Who needs God if we are to be taught by ourselves? The problems you encounter with those elders reflects that they buy into the former (taught by Jehovah) rather than the latter (taught by the people).
Plainly, there must be some interface between the divine and the human. Integral to the faith of Jehovah’s Witnesses is that that interface is the successor of those who brought the truth to us in the first place—whoever fills the shoes of the “older men in Jerusalem.” That doesn’t mean that each person is not responsible for his/her own relationship with God, but it does mean that each is not an island unto himself. 
I know where you are coming from on this, but it is overstated. One doesn’t have to believe every little thing, though to be sure, one is encouraged to. But you don’t have to. What you cannot do is grab the wheel of the bus. Most elders will take your remarks below as evidence that you are trying to do this:
The clear inference of these remarks is that you mean to tear the cover off this ‘faulty and maybe corrupt organization.’ Do you really think that you will be welcomed with open arms? Their entire faith is that Jehovah does not lead his people that way.
From the Reseach Guide commentary on Genesis 1:31–
“The fall from perfection explains why the human body, though marvelously designed, is susceptible to deformities and disease. Evolution is therefore incompatible with the Bible. Evolution presents modern man as an improving animal. The Bible presents modern man as the degenerating descendant of a perfect man.”
Because this is true, the “top-down” approach of the JW organization is what resonates with members. Yours smacks of the “bottom-up” approach, man as an “improving animal” developing powerful skills of thought to lift us all up by our own bootstraps.
@JW Insider says each Christian has an obligation to examine the foundation of his faith. This is true, but means of examination differ from person to person. For most people, the only examination one must make of their vehicle is to observe that it gets them from place to place, to bring it in for cursory inspection each year, and to accept the fact that, being imperfect, it will require maintenance and repair from time to time. There will be a few mechanically minded owners that will go the extra mile, tear down the engine to examine closely each component, and in doing so, might occasionally forestall a problem, but this is hardly something to be expected of the average person, even if they are the elders that you want to run your thoughts by.
I will concede that our elders might be prone at times to read ”false positives,” and it would be better if they didn’t. So? Doctors read and act upon false positives all the time and no one doubts their competency on that account. Today elders see direction on avoiding those who raise sects or divisions. (Titus 3:10, 2 Timothy 2:17, 1 Cor 1:10) and might at times overreact. Maybe they should rise to the occasion and “snatch from the fire those who have doubts.” Maybe. However the tone of your remarks indicate that you have more than doubts—you have assertions and conclusions that you want to debate with them. We are not a debating people. We are the type that waits to be taught by Jehovah.
I’m not thrilled about any number of things in the Witness organization. From time to time I drop one or two of them in this forum. I would prefer that some did feel inclined to discuss with you your points—at least until you became so insistent upon them that it became clear to both that your home lay elsewhere. Still, I keep things in perspective. The good of the JW organization far outweighs the bad. Regarding my pet peeves, I look around to see if there is anyone accomplishing the acts of faith that JWs do minus those peeves. (Please don’t come back with ‘acts of faith’ are not the important thing—or if you do, take it up with Luke for writing ‘Acts of the Apostles’ when he should have written ‘Faith of the Apostles.)  If there was, I would go there. But there is not—not even remotely close—so that I even begin to reassess my pet peeves. I am imperfect, too. Maybe if an organization was structured around my peeves, it would promptly implode. So I accept congregation policy and discipline—I may not even think it is right in every occasion and particular, but such is the nature of working with people. I’ve learned how to yield and how to cooperate. I try to get my head around them, rather than insisting that they get their head around me.
This strikes me as a remarkable lack of faith. Ought God not be able to unite people? Ought he not be able to get them to cooperate, and in so doing, magnify their acts of worship? Yet you stand as an island hailing ships passing by.
You thereby have no need of applying the above verses on avoiding divisions, for you stand by yoursef. You have no need to apply the countless verses as to how to get along, because you make no effort to get along. Where are the meetings of Hebrews 10:24 that you are not to forsake? Where is the “in” of Haggai 2:7 that the precious things of the nations are to come in to? You have no need, or even opportunity, of showing love for the brothers, since you have no brothers—you have separated from them—to God’s dishonor. Maybe he will provide a “true anointed” (essentially from scratch) within ten years.
Hypercritcal people, such as your words suggest you might be one of, are a nightmare in the congregation. They are constantly causing contentions over matters great and small. Yet, they are stumbled at the drop of a pin, and cause chaos in that way, too. The GB and elders work tirelessly to readjust such persons. But if they absolutely will not change, it is better in my view if they depart. They cause nothing but trouble.
They need to get their heads around, and more importantly, their hearts around, the huge forgiveness Jesus afforded Peter for failure at a critical time, and yet even after this, Peter failed in a colossal manner, buckling to peer pressure that even some schoolchildren would not buckle to—the matter of avoiding Gentile Christians when the Jewish Christians came calling (stumbling even Barnabas)—and yet he continued to serve as a pillar of the congregation.
It’s no good to be an island. The time for such passed long ago. Will your theme text be that of Paul Simon?
I've built walls
A fortress deep and mighty
That none may penetrate
I have no need of friendship, friendship causes pain
It's laughter and it's loving I disdain
I am a rock
I am an island Don't talk of love
But I've heard the words before
It's sleeping in my memory
I won't disturb the slumber of feelings that have died
If I never loved I never would have cried
I am a rock
I am an island.

Well it depends what it is. If it would be something blatantly against scripture, then you can bet you would not be the only one to notice this, and others would say something, if not everyone. But if it was something that was ambiguous, then it would be wise to wait until things became clearer. There are many things where we might have our own opinion, even regarding the interpretation of some scriptures. But unless there is only ONE possible way of looking at something, who is to say WE are right?
I am not sure what you mean by “dangerous teachings”. Something from the Ezekiel book?
1 Cor 13:8  “Love never fails. But if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away with; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away with”.
In context Paul is saying that these “gifts” will cease or “fail” but what will remain is “faith”  “hope” and “ love” …the greatest being love. Everything that we are to know has been recorded by those who had those gifts. The Bible is complete, with nothing more to be added to it. So these gifts of prophesy are no longer needed and neither are “tongues” .  What we can increase is knowledge, and “when that which is complete arrives, that which is partial (the knowledge) will be done away with and will become complete as per Daniel 12:4.
The little flock (the anointed) and the great crowd, those who are not anointed, become one flock as Jesus said. There is no separation of the Christian congregation and no separation of the body of Christ, they are all united in thought, after all, that is what Paul had in mind, because it was impossible for ALL the anointed to be together physically. 
Ahh, the faults of the GB. Well this too has been brought out many times, that faults and mistakes will will happen, just as they did with Jesus’ disciples.
We have also talked about this. There is a degree of trust necessary with anyone acting in the capacity of authority. Even though we know such persons of authority can make mistakes, we still trust them to do their best in that capacity. This goes for doctors, police, etc.There is nothing wrong with trusting the elders, trusting that they have our good interests at heart. HOWEVER if we find that individuals are going against the Bible, then we may, in fact we must, report it.. Depending on how serious it is (I think child abuse is exempt from this, and should be reported to the elders and Police) the Bible gives steps on how to handle situations like that. Matthew 18:15-17 "  “Moreover, if your brother commits a sin, go and reveal his fault* between you and him alone.n If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.16  But if he does not listen, take along with you one or two more, so that on the testimony* of two or three witnesses every matter* may be established.17  If he does not listen* to them, speak to the congregation. If he does not listen* even to the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector" .But we have also talked about this..So if we feel a brother has wronged us, we go to the brother first. If we find out a brother has committed a sin, we go to that brother first.
Are you saying this scripture is wrong?
Oh really? Well they are not holding mine, and I am sure I am not the only one whose hand they're not holding.
What I don't think you can get through your head is that the primary measuring stick for obedience is : we must obey God as ruler rather than men, and even if Angel's declared it to us. Gal 1:8
To be continued.......

A little bit of a stretch applying that to the GB don't you think?
So we should all be listening to this stranger's voice? Because it seems pretty strange alright. (Can you say: "Not playing with a full deck?")
According to her self-written profile, Pearl Doxsey, "Has been chosen to be a light in the world...called to be a prophet in the body of Christ..." 
That's not to say God can't and hasn't chosen or inspired humans to speak for him. But this isn't one of those...pretty sure
 

.... and all of this was before the invention of boxing gloves ...

You still seem to have the idea that persons who are truly anointed will be inspired by God's holy spirit and not let personal viewpoints get in the way. Look again at Acts 15:
(Acts 15:2) . . .But after quite a bit of dissension and disputing by Paul and Barʹna·bas with them,. . .
(Acts 15:6, 7) 6 So the apostles and the elders gathered together to look into this matter. 7 After much intense discussion had taken place,. . .

You are treading on dangerous ground, even if you have already considered that Cesar, is Allen, is . . . . etc. Expect a lot of diversions -- and insults if you don't let the diversions work.
Actually you, Arauna, definitely did mention it during that discussion, and the comments you made about it there indicated that you were NOT aware that it doesn't change a thing. (Assuming you go along with the rest of the WTS assumptions about 538/537.)
The festival of Akitu was not just celebrated in 538 BCE, but EACH and EVERY year for centuries prior and centuries afterwards. I know you already knew that, but the way you worded it above could have implied to others that this festival took place only in 538. (The WTS evidently believes there was another Akitu/NewYear's celebration in 537 and this would have been just as possible.) Or at least you were implying that there was some special evidence that only allowed for this particular year 538 to be the time when Cyrus declared the Jews to be free to go home.
Turns out this is just a guess with no real evidence behind it, if you think it forces the decree to be only possible in 538. But I agree that it's possible (though a little less likely if the WTS is right about 537). You might recall from the other discussion, I didn't care whether your preferred SECULAR date was 539 or 538 or 537 for the declaration/release because any of of those dates is a close enough fit for the Bible record, and any of those dates supports the historical facts surrounding the prophecies of Jeremiah. Any of those dates would be a fair fit for the dominance of Babylon for 70 years. (A dominance and servitude that led to a very greatest level of desolation Israel had ever seen, associated directly with those same 70 years given to Babylon for domination as a "World Empire.")
Apparently you also didn't realize that you were using it in a way to push the first regnal "year" of Cyrus to a date that even the Watchtower doesn't necessarily push for. The Watchtower would have loved to move the decree as late as possible after 539 because of the 3 year gap between 539 and the 536 date that Russell had used for Cyrus overtaking Babylon. Changing 606 to 607 back in 1943 had only bought them 1 of those 3 years, but that still left 2 years to account for. Russell/Barbour had not really accounted for communication time, preparation time and travel time back to Judea, so adding a year for this bought the Watchtower 1 more of those 2 years, still unaccounted for. So to get that extra year they also needed to push the decree of Cyrus (freeing the Jews) to a time that was a year or even more than a year after Babylon was overtaken.
So, to that end, the Insight book hints that it is possible, and that some commentators have inserted Darius for that first year without Cyrus, but continues to use a date that shows it's more likely they were co-rulers. You are pushing for an idea that would put Cyrus' accession year and first full regnal year (Nisannu to Nisannu) to a point one year later than the Watchtower admits.
*** it-1 p. 568 Cyrus ***
The Bible record at Daniel 9:1 refers to “the first year of Darius,” and this may have intervened between the fall of Babylon and “the first year of Cyrus” over Babylon. If it did, this would mean that the writer was perhaps viewing Cyrus’ first year as having begun late in the year 538 B.C.E. However, if Darius’ rule over Babylon were to be viewed as that of a viceroy, so that his reign ran concurrent with that of Cyrus, Babylonian custom would place Cyrus’ first regnal year as running from Nisan of 538 to Nisan of 537 B.C.E.
In view of the Bible record, Cyrus’ decree freeing the Jews to return to Jerusalem likely was made late in the year 538 or early in 537 B.C.E.
But making such a big deal out of the importance of the Akitu (New Year's celebration) did not help your claim in the slightest.
The Akitu celebration was indeed at least a week-long celebration that was officially ran from Nisannu 4th through the 11th. With preparation and travel to the two main temples and back, it's probably fine to count it from the 1st to the 14th as you did above.
But, as stated, it was not just celebrated in 538 of course. It was celebrated in 540, 539, 538, 537, 536, 535, etc., not just in 538.
I do agree that this New Year's celebration was probably considered an appropriate time for a king like Cyrus to make that kind of legal announcement to free the Jews from exile. I'm fine with your date, but it has no real solid evidence, only conjecture, and the declaration might have even been even more likely in 539. Either way it plays no part in 1914. Even if 607 had been correct, it would have nothing to do with 1914, from a scriptural perspective. You are only arguing from a secular perspective.

Maybe you should take some time to read our publications to get a clearer understanding of what we officially believe. While I can't speak for the point of view of individuals such as yourself, I can highlight what we are officially taught and what I am aware of myself.
This is from the "Insight Book volume 1 under "Good News" which is there for all to see.
"GOOD NEWS  This refers to the good news of the kingdom of God and of salvation by faith in Jesus Christ. It is called in the Bible the 'good news of the kingdom' (Mt. 4:23), 'the good news of God' (Rom.15:16), 'the good news about Jesus Christ (Mr. 1:1), 'the good news of the undeserved kindness of God' (Ac. 20:24), 'the good news of peace' (Eph. 6:15), and the 'everlasting good news." (Re. 14:6)...It's Content  An idea of the content and scope of the good news can be gained from the above designations. It includes all the truths about which Jesus spoke and the disciples wrote. While men of old hoped in God and had faith through knowledge of Him. God's purpose and underserved kindness were first 'made clearly evident throughout the manifestation of our Saviour, Christ Jesus, who has abolished death but has shed light upon life and incorruption through the good news. 2 Ti. 1:9, 10...Jesus' Earthly Ministry and His Return.  It is noteworthy that, for about six  months before Jesus came to him for baptism, John the Baptizer preached: 'Repent, for the kingdom of the heavens has drawn near,' and when Jesus appeared, John pointed to Jesus as the 'Lamb of Go that takes away the sin of the world.' (Mt. 3:1 2. Joh 1;29). Thus he turned the people's attention toward the long-awaited Messianic King. (Ac. 19:4)...While Jesus was on earth, he and his disciples announced: "The kingdom of he heavens has drawn near." (Mt. 4:17, 10:7). Jesus, anointed as Christ, the King, said to the Pharisees, his enemies: 'The kingdom of God is in your midst.' (Lu 17:20, 21) This was the theme, or central point, of the good news during Jesus' earthly ministry. However, it is not reported that after Jesus' death the disciples proclaimed the Kingdom as having 'drawn near' or as being at hand. Rather, the good news they preached was that after Jesus had laid down his life as the ransom price for salvation, he ascended to heaven and was then sitting at God's right hand. They also preached about Jesus' return at a later time and his Kingdom to come. (Heb. 10:12, 13; 2 Tim. 4:1; Re. 11:15; 12:10; 22:20, compare Lu 19:12, 15)" - end of quote.
  So the "good news" involves more than one aspect. So to be fair, JW's always acknowledge Jesus' role as Saviour and King and Redeemer and we do that each and every day and several times a day. After all, when we pray, don't we acknowledge Jesus' office in our prayers - praying in his name? We pray that way in our personal prayers, at mealtimes, at congregation meetings, at assemblies, district conventions, memorial, meetings for field service and even when conducting Bible studies with interested ones. So if you are insinuating we are somehow diminishing Jesus in our preaching and daily lives, I would suggest you are not being very honest. 
Even in the GOOD NEWS brochure that we discuss with people in our ministry, a consideration of Jesus and his role and importance comes before a consideration on the kingdom and is true also of other publications. ( ie. What Does the Bible Really Teach?) 
So while we do in fact highlight what Jesus and God's Kingdom will accomplish in behalf of mankind, it's a judgment call as to what aspect we may highlight according to the householder. For instance, in North America and much of Europe, there are hundreds of millions of Christians within tens of thousands of denominations. What is one thing they almost all have in common with us today - centuries after Jesus? That we believe Jesus is the Messiah, that he is a king, that salvation is only possible through faith in him, that God's promises are 'Amen' through him, that there is 'not another name under heaven by which we can gain salvation...'" So if our ministry only focused on preaching a message we all already agree with, of what use is it? However, the message regarding God's Kingdom, what it will accomplish, who will benefit and what benefits there will be and the issue of universal sovereignty is largely lost or entirely missing to most people - Christian or otherwise. Jesus didn't put praying for 'God's Kingdom to come' near the top of the Lord's Prayer list for nothing. After all, how many Christians who pray for 'God's will to be done on earth as it is in heaven...' know what that purpose is? Is it really to destroy the earth in a fireball?
So if JW's highlight an aspect of the Good News (earthly paradise or more...) that is necessary for people to know about, and are unaware of already, what of it?
 
 

No I just did a normal risk assessment of the threats to the earth and its population and realized that the bible is absolutely spot-on in its prophecies.
Jehovah will definitely step in before we ruin it completely - so to look at certain milestones we have reached is practical.  
Based on evidence.......  For example: Isaac  had faith that jehovah could resurrect him if he allowed his father to sacrifice him. His father had faith based on evidence .  Did he just blindly believe?  Definitely NOT.  He had "evidence" . He knew that his mother was beyond the age to bear children and jehovah revived her womb to produce his life. Jehovah could give him life again. True, Abraham knew that the promise would come through isaac and he had seen evidence of jehovah in his life before. 
 

I have often seen you quote scriptures to suit yourself and  with a very warped or emotional perspective.
One can have "evidence" - even if things are not seen.  The simplest example is wind. One cannot see it but one sees the effect..... therefore there is wind.
How do they know there was a big bang...... they measure things which we cannot see with the eye.
How do we know God exists? Because we can see intelligent design..... the unseen wisdom in the design.....
I can go on and on.  For someone who claims to be anointed your insight  goes as far as quoting tons of scriptures without understanding what they really mean.

Piece of cake for him
Yes! It will be them—the “true anointed.” They are preparing so well for their new assignment that when people hear footsteps coming up the drive, they say: “Here come those International Bible Students again!
Yes! They would break out in song like the munchkins of Oz: “Ding dong the witch is dead!”
Why would you say that?
Because I just present myself as an ordinary person, not as One of the true anointed throwing a lifeline to lost souls. Much of what I write there has nothing to do with religion. Same goes for my blog, which is not a part of Facebook.
I think they do. Granted, they do not accept your role as the Great Explainer.
Ditto. I think they do. Granted, they do not accept your role as the Great Explainer. They don’t count it as “misuse.” They are not quite so....so....some would say immature....as you.

Jesus himself said that no flesh would be saved unless God stepped in. While it is not a teaching of ours to 'fear'  destruction of the earth there is a prophecy which shows we are indeed  'ruining' the earth. Rev 11:18.
I follow news regarding this issue and the true state if affairs regarding the biosphere is hidden from the public, while scientists are playing along with US government policy to hide the true state if affairs. 
Ice on Himalayas is melting as is a threat to the country of Bhutan, Maldives going down with rising waters.  Forests are dryer in certain areas, leaves and roots so dry that new saplings are dying. Fires in Sweden, Russia etc. The biggest secret is climate engineering..... on and on.... bla bla.... too much information available but people do not go there.
Hebr 11:1   Faith is based on evidence.  Blind faith is not faith. 
 

Same here.  So, no prob.  If you had anything to add about the festival of Akito that I do not know about - I am prepared to listen.
Isaiah 2:2-4  shows a nation in the  time of the end dedicated to name of jehovah that is world wide.  That nation already exists and similar to the time of Israel the nation is not perfect but serves a purpose.  It fulfills prophecies and does the final preaching work of the "kingdom".   While I agree with you that jehovah will clean the entire organization (start with his nation first) it does not mean that they do not fulfill his prophecies. 
 
 

Well, in that case your True Anointed would have to start up from scratch (in just 10 years or less), and when I floated that idea by you before, you had a cow over it.
Of course! There they are on Facebook, that site founded by the frat boy in order to rate women by their...um....attributes. Yes! A perfect spot for God to call his own!
Go back to being nonsensical, 4Jah—you don’t mess with people’s heads when you do that.

I've read things like this too. But it should still be pointed out that it is conjecture to indicate that it was at one of these events that Cyrus must have made the declaration. And although the king was an integral part of each New Year's celebration, a co- or vice-regent could represent him or "do the honors" under their own title.

Be obedient to those taking the lead amongst you: what do YOU believe this scripture means.
"Obviously because we can all have our own opinions as to what each scripture "  - your quote.
This kind of philosophy/thinking I found prevalent in the west in first world countries...... at work.....everywhere .  Meaning that there can be no unity because all do and think as they please but only cooperate and keep quiet because they want their pay .  This way of  thinking has also infiltrated the Christian congregation...... each one wants their independent opinion - not realizing that this causes division. 
I prefer to try to understand why the GB opinion differs from mine.  
You think I am a GB puppet - I am not.  However, I have learnt to think about what the GB say and why they say it..... so I can cooperate to the best of my abilities.  The sin Adam did was egotistical - he wanted to be independent from jehovah.  This tendency is still the greatest deceiver of those who like to deceive themselves.   Their freedom is not true freedom because they are a slave to themselves. 
Anna will not listen to me - she knows better. She happens to agree with me because it is logical.  Something you do not see. You listen to Witness who will lead you down the garden path because you like your own opinion and independence more than the truth.  You are a slave to your own desires/ideas.
Not to the point where they all want special treatment. The special use is being a slave of God...... and the commission is to preach and teach.  I know another anointed lady who has been a pioneer most of her life,  she must now be 87 and still going strong. Smart but humble, raising 5 faithful children with an unfaithful husband who later divorced her.  She gave me wonderful advice.  Apparently she still cooks for pioneers.....  

Nobody is. I need you to get the ball rolling. Have you gone back to celebrating Christmas yet? The books make great stocking stuffers.
Come now, don’t be mean to me. I am trying to help.
You have said that Armageddon might be 10 years or more in the future, and that the ‘true anointed’ (since the present one is no good) might manifest itself in 10 years or less. Thus it is conceivable that they might both happen at the ten year mark on the dot, and the situation of those saved will be like the baseball player sliding into home—the true anointed umpire waving him safe as the devil catcher misses with his tag.
So that this ridiculous situation does not happen, you must do all you can so that the ”true anointed,” when it appears, hits the ground running and doesn’t wait to the last moment to get moving. Some members of this “true anointed,” I gather, are still muzzled within JWorg—they can’t all be outside and have their own Facebook pages. If they were, they could start a Facebook group and go from there, lacking only the Great Eight, who they don’t like anyway.. So some must be current Witnesses who are treated terribly, held incommunicado, not allowed to communicate with one another. 
You can’t help them because the present arrangement is not pure enough for you and you cannot look upon what is bad. However, JTR is not so finicky and has no problem doing that. You can assign him to the role of “true helper” to those future members of the “true anointed.” He can thereby redeem himself in your eyes for seeing, as you do, how wicked everything is in the org but choosing to remain there still—give him the assignment. He can visit these mistreated anointed ones in their cells and even pass notes from one to another in case they want to communicate in strict violation of the rules. That way they will be in better shape when the true liberation comes.
Please, 4Jah, I am only trying to help. I think this suggestion might work.
 
 

Blaming the GB et al for not using our brains is just another example of not using our brains. Each person is responsible for their own spirituality. When we stand in front of the judgment seat of God, there isn’t going to be an elder holding our hand, or telling us how to think or what to say.
Yes, indeed. So we will let God be the judge of who stumbled who. There are also a scriptures which tell us what to do in order NOT to be stumbled.
When I say questioning, that doesn’t necessarily mean literally questioning them by putting pen to paper or calling them, or causing a ruckus in the congregation.  It means that we can be on the alert to make sure of all things, and make sure (question) that all things are in harmony with the scriptures. That is why G. Jackson said anyone who has the Bible would be able to do so, and would be able to see if certain direction (from the GB) measured up, and would see if it was right or wrong direction. If we discern it’s wrong direction then we act on our own behalf, and not tell others what to do, because everyone else has a Bible too.
Yes, the anointed are baptized with HS and there are various ways each unique to them as to how they “know”. However the Bible says the miracles would cease.
The WT on this topic merely points out some important facts, and it is good that it has been written. We had a sister in our hall who never looked up a scripture, never sang any songs, never answered, she just sat in the KH, would jiggle her car keys, walk around after the meeting telling people she is watching them. At one time she approached the platform during the meeting flicking a lighter in her hand. She was mentally ill. She also partook of the emblems each year. You judge for yourself whether she was of the anointed or not.
The WT was not demeaning any of the anointed. One of the GB’s own sons is of the anointed, and everything the WT said applies to him too. We already talked about why there is no need for the anointed to form some kind of special club, just for the anointed. The reason for that is because we are all one flock. Any building up and sharing of thoughts is done in each congregation. I very much appreciated the thoughts of the anointed couple I used to know before they died. 
The idea is that just as Jesus distributed the loaves to his disciples and his disciples fed the crowds, so the other sheep would be fed at the hands of a few. I imagine it is a practical reason too, because who knows who really is anointed or not if one does not know them personally. It would mean that TTH for example, could claim to be of the anointed, and then imagine the kind of stuff he would be sharing via the internet! (just kidding @TrueTomHarley 😄) 
Of course not! And neither does @b4ucuhear.
See, this is another instance where the obvious needs to be explained to you. I understood exactly what bc4ucuhear was saying, because I know, and he knows, and all Witnesses know, that Jesus does NOT make mistakes. Therefore in that context, b4 was merely saying that IF it appears that Jesus is making a mistake, (because he oversees the congregations) then we know it’s NOT Jesus,  in fact this brings me to what else b4 said regarding Jesus’ oversight: "Jesus and Jehovah have provided direction in his Word as guidelines for how the congregation should be run. sometimes men in authority go "beyond what is written" and we should use our "clear thinking faculties" to be able to discern the difference. The fact is, that if one is too lazy to study and read God's Word or are gullible, you can start acting like you are in a cult - even when you are not". Also " So, if Jesus controls all the elders like some sort of spiritual remote control by means of holy spirit, (as some may think), then everything that takes place within the organization should be perfect, because Jesus is perfect and would use holy spirit in a perfect way. Why is that of interest? Because too many things happen within thes  organization (even the early Christian congregation), that are clearly not "controlled" by Jesus - unless he is deliberately controlling them to do bad things..(logic alert for Mr. Butler!!!  b4 is not here implying that Jesus would do that, it's just to show the absurdity of that notion)  I won't get into detail, but things happen that shouldn't happen and even very unscriptural things happen. My description of the factors that come into play regarding that interplay, attempted to explain the discrepancies that clearly exist if you are not living in a "snow globe." I had mentioned 1 Tim. 5:24 because it plays an important role in helping to understand why bad things can go on within the congregation for decades. All one has to do is look at the way that scripture is true historically to get a better understanding of how it applies today. The fact that elders have a measure of autonomy is hinted at by the phrase: "By heeding his words to each of the seven congregations, present-day elders see how they can handle similar situations." So elders make their decision based on "heeding his words" which are contained where? In the Bible - and so are accountable to Jesus as to how they use the authority he gives them". 
Although b4ucuhear was giving the example of elders in the congregation, by extension the same principles apply to the GB, they are elders too.
(For some reason you thought it was funny as you gave it a laughing emoji).
But you still didn't answer my question. Bible in hand, what have you found that the GB are doing wrong?