Anna

Unfortunately most Christian denominations still take whole blood - so reading the bible did not help them to apply the scriptures in their lives to "abstain" from blood.
The GB council does help many to see this important principle to respect life.
I have seen nothing logical coming from you. Only personal deprecating comments and misapplied scriptures.

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?

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?

P.S. Correction: To be fair, I should have never used the word "channel" as that was never what was questioned, because the only channel God is using to communicate with mankind is his Word, the Bible. The word that was actually used is "spokesperson" for God, and it is obvious that anyone who "speaks" the Word of God (from the Bible) is his spokesperson.  G. Jackson remarked that it is anyone who gives comfort and help through the scriptures.....

It has been put in writing, but no it so many words as he said at the ARC. Not black and white. Many JW's don't think beyond what is black and white, and need everything not only served up, but already digested. This is why many, like you, are under the wrong impression that the GB are supposed to make no mistakes, and cannot be questioned. And then, like you, when they find out they have made mistakes, their faith is shaken, and they throw out the baby with the bath water.
So then you keep talking about the "real anointed"....
What do you think the identifying mark of these "real anointed" is?  What should these "real anointed" be like? Like the anointed in the first century? Perhaps like impulsive Peter, who denied Christ three times, and was hypocritical when it came to impartiality or perhaps like Paul, who had outbursts of anger, or Barnabas who was swayed by others to act pretentiously? The Bible does not mention every detail of the lives of the anointed, and the mistakes they made, but it is obvious that they were imperfect and did make mistakes. Should we expect any less from the "real anointed" today? Because you seem to be stuck on the idea that the true anointed would never make any mistakes. But that is not a Biblical teaching at all. Why else were the anointed of the 1st century admonished to continue putting up with one another? Why did James say to his fellow anointed that they were to confess their sins to one another? Why did Paul admit it was a battle to do the right thing, and that sometimes he failed? The anointed of those days were baptized with holy spirit, the HS helped them to speak languages they never knew before, it helped them to perform miracles. All that was finished and done when the last of them died, and wasn't going to happen again. Jesus said that the HS was going to guide the anointed into all the truth. There is no indication that this was going to be an instantaneous revelation. On the contrary it was going to be gradual, just like the dawning of a day. (according to the scriptures).  Not only that, but "all the truth" is a relative term, as according to the Bible we will never know all the truth. So "all the truth" means what Jehovah wants us to know, and when he wants us to know it.
@b4ucuhear hit the nail on the head when he said regarding those taking the lead:  "People need to know the difference. "Whole-souled devotion" to Jehovah does not mean whole-souled devotion to imperfect men - even when we respect what authority they have as part of Jehovah's arrangement and offer scriptural obedience. " One reason is that some of these men are not who they appear to be (whether they be "wolves in sheep's clothing," "wicked men and imposters," "rocks hidden below the surface..." There is no level of authority within the organization where such men have not been found.) Should we be obedient to them? We need to know the difference when such men (i.e.. apostates or immoral men) direct things not in harmony with Jesus' direction as recorded in the Bible. Also, that way we won't be stumbled when Jesus apparently gets dates and teachings wrong and has to back-track on what he directed/controlled before. No, the reality is that we still have to use our brains".  (emphasis mine).
The above sentiments apply not only to apostates and immoral men, but to anyone in the position of leadership (just in case you don't know, that means the GB too). This is why G. Jackson was able to say that (paraphrased), "anyone who has the Bible can check whether the GB is doing things according to the Bible". That means YOU too! So please tell, Bible in hand, what have you found?
 

It has been put in writing, but no it so many words as he said at the ARC. Not black and white. Many JW's don't think beyond what is black and white, and need everything not only served up, but already digested. This is why many, like you, are under the wrong impression that the GB are supposed to make no mistakes, and cannot be questioned. And then, like you, when they find out they have made mistakes, their faith is shaken, and they throw out the baby with the bath water.
So then you keep talking about the "real anointed"....
What do you think the identifying mark of these "real anointed" is?  What should these "real anointed" be like? Like the anointed in the first century? Perhaps like impulsive Peter, who denied Christ three times, and was hypocritical when it came to impartiality or perhaps like Paul, who had outbursts of anger, or Barnabas who was swayed by others to act pretentiously? The Bible does not mention every detail of the lives of the anointed, and the mistakes they made, but it is obvious that they were imperfect and did make mistakes. Should we expect any less from the "real anointed" today? Because you seem to be stuck on the idea that the true anointed would never make any mistakes. But that is not a Biblical teaching at all. Why else were the anointed of the 1st century admonished to continue putting up with one another? Why did James say to his fellow anointed that they were to confess their sins to one another? Why did Paul admit it was a battle to do the right thing, and that sometimes he failed? The anointed of those days were baptized with holy spirit, the HS helped them to speak languages they never knew before, it helped them to perform miracles. All that was finished and done when the last of them died, and wasn't going to happen again. Jesus said that the HS was going to guide the anointed into all the truth. There is no indication that this was going to be an instantaneous revelation. On the contrary it was going to be gradual, just like the dawning of a day. (according to the scriptures).  Not only that, but "all the truth" is a relative term, as according to the Bible we will never know all the truth. So "all the truth" means what Jehovah wants us to know, and when he wants us to know it.
@b4ucuhear hit the nail on the head when he said regarding those taking the lead:  "People need to know the difference. "Whole-souled devotion" to Jehovah does not mean whole-souled devotion to imperfect men - even when we respect what authority they have as part of Jehovah's arrangement and offer scriptural obedience. " One reason is that some of these men are not who they appear to be (whether they be "wolves in sheep's clothing," "wicked men and imposters," "rocks hidden below the surface..." There is no level of authority within the organization where such men have not been found.) Should we be obedient to them? We need to know the difference when such men (i.e.. apostates or immoral men) direct things not in harmony with Jesus' direction as recorded in the Bible. Also, that way we won't be stumbled when Jesus apparently gets dates and teachings wrong and has to back-track on what he directed/controlled before. No, the reality is that we still have to use our brains".  (emphasis mine).
The above sentiments apply not only to apostates and immoral men, but to anyone in the position of leadership (just in case you don't know, that means the GB too). This is why G. Jackson was able to say that (paraphrased), "anyone who has the Bible can check whether the GB is doing things according to the Bible". That means YOU too! So please tell, Bible in hand, what have you found?
 

It has been put in writing, but no it so many words as he said at the ARC. Not black and white. Many JW's don't think beyond what is black and white, and need everything not only served up, but already digested. This is why many, like you, are under the wrong impression that the GB are supposed to make no mistakes, and cannot be questioned. And then, like you, when they find out they have made mistakes, their faith is shaken, and they throw out the baby with the bath water.
So then you keep talking about the "real anointed"....
What do you think the identifying mark of these "real anointed" is?  What should these "real anointed" be like? Like the anointed in the first century? Perhaps like impulsive Peter, who denied Christ three times, and was hypocritical when it came to impartiality or perhaps like Paul, who had outbursts of anger, or Barnabas who was swayed by others to act pretentiously? The Bible does not mention every detail of the lives of the anointed, and the mistakes they made, but it is obvious that they were imperfect and did make mistakes. Should we expect any less from the "real anointed" today? Because you seem to be stuck on the idea that the true anointed would never make any mistakes. But that is not a Biblical teaching at all. Why else were the anointed of the 1st century admonished to continue putting up with one another? Why did James say to his fellow anointed that they were to confess their sins to one another? Why did Paul admit it was a battle to do the right thing, and that sometimes he failed? The anointed of those days were baptized with holy spirit, the HS helped them to speak languages they never knew before, it helped them to perform miracles. All that was finished and done when the last of them died, and wasn't going to happen again. Jesus said that the HS was going to guide the anointed into all the truth. There is no indication that this was going to be an instantaneous revelation. On the contrary it was going to be gradual, just like the dawning of a day. (according to the scriptures).  Not only that, but "all the truth" is a relative term, as according to the Bible we will never know all the truth. So "all the truth" means what Jehovah wants us to know, and when he wants us to know it.
@b4ucuhear hit the nail on the head when he said regarding those taking the lead:  "People need to know the difference. "Whole-souled devotion" to Jehovah does not mean whole-souled devotion to imperfect men - even when we respect what authority they have as part of Jehovah's arrangement and offer scriptural obedience. " One reason is that some of these men are not who they appear to be (whether they be "wolves in sheep's clothing," "wicked men and imposters," "rocks hidden below the surface..." There is no level of authority within the organization where such men have not been found.) Should we be obedient to them? We need to know the difference when such men (i.e.. apostates or immoral men) direct things not in harmony with Jesus' direction as recorded in the Bible. Also, that way we won't be stumbled when Jesus apparently gets dates and teachings wrong and has to back-track on what he directed/controlled before. No, the reality is that we still have to use our brains".  (emphasis mine).
The above sentiments apply not only to apostates and immoral men, but to anyone in the position of leadership (just in case you don't know, that means the GB too). This is why G. Jackson was able to say that (paraphrased), "anyone who has the Bible can check whether the GB is doing things according to the Bible". That means YOU too! So please tell, Bible in hand, what have you found?
 

It has been put in writing, but no it so many words as he said at the ARC. Not black and white. Many JW's don't think beyond what is black and white, and need everything not only served up, but already digested. This is why many, like you, are under the wrong impression that the GB are supposed to make no mistakes, and cannot be questioned. And then, like you, when they find out they have made mistakes, their faith is shaken, and they throw out the baby with the bath water.
So then you keep talking about the "real anointed"....
What do you think the identifying mark of these "real anointed" is?  What should these "real anointed" be like? Like the anointed in the first century? Perhaps like impulsive Peter, who denied Christ three times, and was hypocritical when it came to impartiality or perhaps like Paul, who had outbursts of anger, or Barnabas who was swayed by others to act pretentiously? The Bible does not mention every detail of the lives of the anointed, and the mistakes they made, but it is obvious that they were imperfect and did make mistakes. Should we expect any less from the "real anointed" today? Because you seem to be stuck on the idea that the true anointed would never make any mistakes. But that is not a Biblical teaching at all. Why else were the anointed of the 1st century admonished to continue putting up with one another? Why did James say to his fellow anointed that they were to confess their sins to one another? Why did Paul admit it was a battle to do the right thing, and that sometimes he failed? The anointed of those days were baptized with holy spirit, the HS helped them to speak languages they never knew before, it helped them to perform miracles. All that was finished and done when the last of them died, and wasn't going to happen again. Jesus said that the HS was going to guide the anointed into all the truth. There is no indication that this was going to be an instantaneous revelation. On the contrary it was going to be gradual, just like the dawning of a day. (according to the scriptures).  Not only that, but "all the truth" is a relative term, as according to the Bible we will never know all the truth. So "all the truth" means what Jehovah wants us to know, and when he wants us to know it.
@b4ucuhear hit the nail on the head when he said regarding those taking the lead:  "People need to know the difference. "Whole-souled devotion" to Jehovah does not mean whole-souled devotion to imperfect men - even when we respect what authority they have as part of Jehovah's arrangement and offer scriptural obedience. " One reason is that some of these men are not who they appear to be (whether they be "wolves in sheep's clothing," "wicked men and imposters," "rocks hidden below the surface..." There is no level of authority within the organization where such men have not been found.) Should we be obedient to them? We need to know the difference when such men (i.e.. apostates or immoral men) direct things not in harmony with Jesus' direction as recorded in the Bible. Also, that way we won't be stumbled when Jesus apparently gets dates and teachings wrong and has to back-track on what he directed/controlled before. No, the reality is that we still have to use our brains".  (emphasis mine).
The above sentiments apply not only to apostates and immoral men, but to anyone in the position of leadership (just in case you don't know, that means the GB too). This is why G. Jackson was able to say that (paraphrased), "anyone who has the Bible can check whether the GB is doing things according to the Bible". That means YOU too! So please tell, Bible in hand, what have you found?
 

Matthew9969:
I will miss you, Matthew.
You have been a good comedy relief, a really good bad example, and I have enjoyed watching a big fish swim sideways in a cake pan full of water.
I will wonder what the other eye is looking at.
 

I’m not one of them. Nor do I have you in mind with application of that Acts 5 verse. I have other people in mind.
Since I am also “out there,” even though not paralleling the topics that you take on, I give thought to “let he who is standing beware that he does not fall.” I don’t want to have happen to me what I have seen happen many times to others—brothers become experts in their own eyes and in time leave Jehovah’s organized worship completely, frustrated that it is not “keeping up.” 
I counter that tendency to become wise in my own eyes by firmly adhering to the traditional door-to-door ministry and making sure activity here is supplemental, not a replacement. My understanding is that you do the same, but I suspect that some others on this forum do not.
I counter the tendency to become wise in my own eyes by staying firmly cooperative with existing congregational arrangements, respecting the role and the need of leadership. I gather that you do the same. 
I counter the tendency to become wise in my own eyes by always looking for the good in others, such as in Philippians 2:3 mode of considering the other superior—searching out and honing in on the at least one quality, often many, at which the other plainly is superior, then always endeavoring to see him or her primarily through this lens. This I believe you do too. In fact, you are better at it than me.
I don’t view you as someone who is not obeying. I view you as someone who is bringing your gift to the altar. If you suspended your traditional ministry and began running down the Christian organization, I would reappraise. But you do not that I have seen. I too, try to “bring my gift to the altar,” such as it is, but it does not replace the organized activity that collectively makes the light shine.

Yes, and that according to Bible chronology, the FDS was appointed in 1919. So if 1914 was questioned, when were the FDS appointed? It would remove that whole aspect of what we have been taught, including the brothers being in prison. 
I agree though that in reality it shouldn't change much about the authority of those taking the lead, because the scriptures say to be obedient to them. And I agree with the sister, I thought it was nothing new either (regarding the FDS only being the GB). But still, everyone is aware that Jesus was supposed to have appointed a specific group to provide spiritual food. If 1914 was removed, that small specific group would be dispersed and would include anyone who was feeding others spiritually, as you have suggested. All this would remove the thought that the GB are the only channel God is using, although G.Jackson admitted that it would be presumptuous to think that they were the only chanel. However I don't think he, or any of the others have put this in writing in any of our publications though. So unless someone has read Jackson's ARC deposition, they will be under the impression that the FDS, therefore the GB  are the ONLY chanel God is using, and therefore to question anything they say is tantamount to going against God himself. A few know this is not true, and the GB themselves think it's not true, but most  r&f believe it. (As you know, this was the reason why I got kicked out of one forum*. And this is  also why it appears that we "worship" the GB, because anything and everything they say is gold and must not be questioned, even if it could be wrong....because they are not infallible and can err...). 
*Questioning God is allowed, but questioning the GB is not! How strange is that?

Yes, and that according to Bible chronology, the FDS was appointed in 1919. So if 1914 was questioned, when were the FDS appointed? It would remove that whole aspect of what we have been taught, including the brothers being in prison. 
I agree though that in reality it shouldn't change much about the authority of those taking the lead, because the scriptures say to be obedient to them. And I agree with the sister, I thought it was nothing new either (regarding the FDS only being the GB). But still, everyone is aware that Jesus was supposed to have appointed a specific group to provide spiritual food. If 1914 was removed, that small specific group would be dispersed and would include anyone who was feeding others spiritually, as you have suggested. All this would remove the thought that the GB are the only channel God is using, although G.Jackson admitted that it would be presumptuous to think that they were the only chanel. However I don't think he, or any of the others have put this in writing in any of our publications though. So unless someone has read Jackson's ARC deposition, they will be under the impression that the FDS, therefore the GB  are the ONLY chanel God is using, and therefore to question anything they say is tantamount to going against God himself. A few know this is not true, and the GB themselves think it's not true, but most  r&f believe it. (As you know, this was the reason why I got kicked out of one forum*. And this is  also why it appears that we "worship" the GB, because anything and everything they say is gold and must not be questioned, even if it could be wrong....because they are not infallible and can err...). 
*Questioning God is allowed, but questioning the GB is not! How strange is that?

I am thinking the same, but I don't think they see it that way. It seems that specific dates are very important to them....

Oh, I want to see this! TTH vs. JWI
 
I know you can't wait to do this

Not me, too busy (studying 1914)

Yes, and that according to Bible chronology, the FDS was appointed in 1919. So if 1914 was questioned, when were the FDS appointed? It would remove that whole aspect of what we have been taught, including the brothers being in prison. 
I agree though that in reality it shouldn't change much about the authority of those taking the lead, because the scriptures say to be obedient to them. And I agree with the sister, I thought it was nothing new either (regarding the FDS only being the GB). But still, everyone is aware that Jesus was supposed to have appointed a specific group to provide spiritual food. If 1914 was removed, that small specific group would be dispersed and would include anyone who was feeding others spiritually, as you have suggested. All this would remove the thought that the GB are the only channel God is using, although G.Jackson admitted that it would be presumptuous to think that they were the only chanel. However I don't think he, or any of the others have put this in writing in any of our publications though. So unless someone has read Jackson's ARC deposition, they will be under the impression that the FDS, therefore the GB  are the ONLY chanel God is using, and therefore to question anything they say is tantamount to going against God himself. A few know this is not true, and the GB themselves think it's not true, but most  r&f believe it. (As you know, this was the reason why I got kicked out of one forum*. And this is  also why it appears that we "worship" the GB, because anything and everything they say is gold and must not be questioned, even if it could be wrong....because they are not infallible and can err...). 
*Questioning God is allowed, but questioning the GB is not! How strange is that?

Oh, I want to see this! TTH vs. JWI
 
I know you can't wait to do this

Yes, and that according to Bible chronology, the FDS was appointed in 1919. So if 1914 was questioned, when were the FDS appointed? It would remove that whole aspect of what we have been taught, including the brothers being in prison. 
I agree though that in reality it shouldn't change much about the authority of those taking the lead, because the scriptures say to be obedient to them. And I agree with the sister, I thought it was nothing new either (regarding the FDS only being the GB). But still, everyone is aware that Jesus was supposed to have appointed a specific group to provide spiritual food. If 1914 was removed, that small specific group would be dispersed and would include anyone who was feeding others spiritually, as you have suggested. All this would remove the thought that the GB are the only channel God is using, although G.Jackson admitted that it would be presumptuous to think that they were the only chanel. However I don't think he, or any of the others have put this in writing in any of our publications though. So unless someone has read Jackson's ARC deposition, they will be under the impression that the FDS, therefore the GB  are the ONLY chanel God is using, and therefore to question anything they say is tantamount to going against God himself. A few know this is not true, and the GB themselves think it's not true, but most  r&f believe it. (As you know, this was the reason why I got kicked out of one forum*. And this is  also why it appears that we "worship" the GB, because anything and everything they say is gold and must not be questioned, even if it could be wrong....because they are not infallible and can err...). 
*Questioning God is allowed, but questioning the GB is not! How strange is that?

My [physical] brother is a master of defensive playing. He leaves nothing to build on.
Neither of us are stickers. I will sometimes go to the Scrabble dictionary to check on the spelling of a word. He will go there to check on its existence.
 

Me too! Sounds like fun. Come to think of it, I'd play anyone. (hint hint) But I'm not implying I'd win. Besides, everyone gets to cheat. Maybe even find a website that will provide the best possible plays. So it might actually seem like two computers playing each other. In that case, the skill would be trying to keep limiting the other player defensively by strategically using up the letters and board space.
As an experiment I'd be happy to set up a manual game like this somewhere on the forum, to see if the idea can work.

The WT has very few times touched Galatians 1:8 (I suspect the writing commitee understands that this can easily be turned against themselves, because many WT doctrines are not well founded in the Bible)
But I found a perfect application in JW online library from a WT from 1952
The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah’s Kingdom—1952 9 Who can start a new religion, contrary to God’s written will and Word? “Even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond what we declared to you as good news, let him be accursed,” wrote the inspired apostle Paul. (Gal. 1:8, NW) If even a high and mighty angel from heaven cannot start a new gospel without being accursed, then certainly no man on earth can do so with immunity. Any who declare as gospel or good news something that is different from what is recorded in Jehovah’s Word is accursed in God’s sight, whether he is sincere in his declarations or not. Sincerity does not make a wrong thing right.
SINCERITY NOT ENOUGH
10. What proves sincerity and zeal alone are insufficient?
10 Clearly indicating that sincerity or zeal in a religious organization that is not following God’s Word is insufficient, Romans 10:2, 3 (NW) declares: “I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God; but not according to accurate knowledge; 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.” These persons had zeal and they must have been sincere, but they did not act in accord with accurate knowledge of God’s Word. They did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own. In their stubbornness and pride in thinking their own religious ideas right and zealously trying to prove them so, they failed to subject themselves to the righteousness of God and his Word.
11. How does Romans 10:2, 3 fit false religions today, and to what extreme may they even go?
11 That is the way it is with so many false religions today. They have their creeds and doctrinal beliefs, pluck texts from their setting to support them, and brush aside any scriptures that contradict them. They zealously press on to establish as righteous their own beliefs, not allowing God’s Word to have final say on the matter and not listening to that Word in its entirety, but selecting what suits their purpose and wresting what does not, rather than conforming their belief to the untwisted, unwrested, pure word of truth in the Bible. Such ones lack meekness and teachableness. They are proud, they are stubborn, they refuse to admit wrong. Clinging tenaciously to their self-will in religious belief, they make themselves idolaters according to the divine rule. .........

That doesn't make sense. I repeat what I'm having for dinner at least every month. Doesn't make it rubbish. Just means that it was still useful. Besides, I think he meant that some of it was from his unpublished files, which is why he thought it was curious, but not in a bad way.
Look at the old Bible Commentaries and Bible Dictionaries by Gesenius, Strong, Elliott, Albert Barnes, Matthew Henry, Vine, Thayer, etc. Now look at how many pages these men must have produced per hour to finish some of these works in their lifetime. Are you saying that anyone who could produce 24 paragraphs in two hours must be doing it wrong? Was it the fact that the supporting scriptures were so well remembered that they got the citations exactly right without having to double-check them? Imagine trying to write a thorough concordance of the Bible in the days before there were any computers or automation to help you out.
Who says they weren't true anointed? All of the persons I referred to claimed to be anointed.

Pretty much what Br. Jackson insinuated, but this was to worldly people. It has yet to be put in plain writing for the congregations because it seems that many do not see it. (unlike you).

Yes, and that according to Bible chronology, the FDS was appointed in 1919. So if 1914 was questioned, when were the FDS appointed? It would remove that whole aspect of what we have been taught, including the brothers being in prison. 
I agree though that in reality it shouldn't change much about the authority of those taking the lead, because the scriptures say to be obedient to them. And I agree with the sister, I thought it was nothing new either (regarding the FDS only being the GB). But still, everyone is aware that Jesus was supposed to have appointed a specific group to provide spiritual food. If 1914 was removed, that small specific group would be dispersed and would include anyone who was feeding others spiritually, as you have suggested. All this would remove the thought that the GB are the only channel God is using, although G.Jackson admitted that it would be presumptuous to think that they were the only chanel. However I don't think he, or any of the others have put this in writing in any of our publications though. So unless someone has read Jackson's ARC deposition, they will be under the impression that the FDS, therefore the GB  are the ONLY chanel God is using, and therefore to question anything they say is tantamount to going against God himself. A few know this is not true, and the GB themselves think it's not true, but most  r&f believe it. (As you know, this was the reason why I got kicked out of one forum*. And this is  also why it appears that we "worship" the GB, because anything and everything they say is gold and must not be questioned, even if it could be wrong....because they are not infallible and can err...). 
*Questioning God is allowed, but questioning the GB is not! How strange is that?

Pretty much what Br. Jackson insinuated, but this was to worldly people. It has yet to be put in plain writing for the congregations because it seems that many do not see it. (unlike you).