Anna

Yes. Do not mess up the impeccable order that is this thread.  

I repeat again, you are reading into things that aren't there.
Of course.
Those of anointed who consider themselves the faithful and discreet slave, as I am sure you are referring to them,  do not wield authority over their fellow anointed, nor are they masters over anyone's faith for that matter. We are all fully cognizant that all the anointed are to answer to Jesus. And we are all cognizant of the fact that no one is better than anyone else. So what is your problem?

You're welcome!
It seems that John Butler  4jah2me is keeping up with the spiritual food faster than you!
Oh really, Mr. know it all
Why don't you just take what is written at face value? That's how they are meant. I find it curious how you need things explained by a prominent elder. Pity he didn't take things at face value either. Reading more into things is never a good idea. Working against the holy spirit in this case is not rocket science. If the Bible's admonition is not to cause divisions, and promote unity, then if one does things contrary to that, then one would be working against the holy spirit. Obviously. You guys get too hung up about what the GB says, and forget what the Bible says.
 
Again, you are reading into things that aren't there. Everyone and anyone can get together and discuss spiritual things. This is talking about exclusivity. That is the point.

I repeat again, you are reading into things that aren't there.
Of course.
Those of anointed who consider themselves the faithful and discreet slave, as I am sure you are referring to them,  do not wield authority over their fellow anointed, nor are they masters over anyone's faith for that matter. We are all fully cognizant that all the anointed are to answer to Jesus. And we are all cognizant of the fact that no one is better than anyone else. So what is your problem?

You're welcome!
It seems that John Butler  4jah2me is keeping up with the spiritual food faster than you!
Oh really, Mr. know it all
Why don't you just take what is written at face value? That's how they are meant. I find it curious how you need things explained by a prominent elder. Pity he didn't take things at face value either. Reading more into things is never a good idea. Working against the holy spirit in this case is not rocket science. If the Bible's admonition is not to cause divisions, and promote unity, then if one does things contrary to that, then one would be working against the holy spirit. Obviously. You guys get too hung up about what the GB says, and forget what the Bible says.
 
Again, you are reading into things that aren't there. Everyone and anyone can get together and discuss spiritual things. This is talking about exclusivity. That is the point.

I get the point: "anointed Christians do not view themselves as being part of an elite club". They do not see themselves in exclusive terms, as if the other sheep didn't belong among them. Therefor they mingle, and encourage the other sheep, not segregate themselves into special anointed camps. Jesus said the two flocks would become one. That is the point.
There is no division in the body, where do you get that idea?

No, he is just an example of how a large % of those who leave (still believing in God) turn out.The leftover % might still believe in God, but have no regard for him in their day to day life. I don't think you or anyone would expect me to write an extensive list of individuals, and what they did and believe since they left the JWS. There are plenty of real life examples on the internet and in real life. I was illustrating this because Srecko said that disfellowshipping does not automatically disqualify a person as individual to continue to be a Jehovah's witness according to Isaiah or any other Bible verses describing a person living according to JHVH will and Jesus' teachings. I said it wasn't automatic, but reality shows that it is a general rule: most do not live according to JHVH's will, nor Jesus' teachings.
What nonsense. We are all brothers and sisters and anyone can contact anyone else. Are you purposefully missing the point?
Jan 2020 study edition WT p. 28
"Anointed Christians do not feel that they should spend time only with other anointed ones, as if they were members of an exclusive club. They do not search out other anointed ones, hoping to discuss their anointing with them or to form private groups for Bible study. (Gal. 1:15-17) The congregation would not be united if anointed ones did those things. They would be working against the holy spirit, which helps God’s people to have peace and unity.—Rom. 16:17, 18".
I suppose those are just rhetorical questions you don't really expect me to answer.

Doesn’t that argue against your contention that Witnesses live and breathe the Watchower?

You're asking questions impossible for JWs to answer without exposing the contradictions inherent in their worship of the Governing Body, i.e., their equating its words with God's words. They get to the heart of whether JW elders are actually appointed by holy spirit, or merely in the self-deceiving sense that the Pope is appointed by holy spirit.

He’s making a big deal over nothing. They had a sticky W key on the main typewriter back then, and the brother who should have fixed it had gone apostate.
The other version I hear is that Vic Vomidog, who was in charge of writing back then, became ambitious.
He no longer wanted to be known as a witness.
He wanted to be known as a Witness.
After his can was kicked to the curb, brothers took a look at what was in the hopper. Next up it was going to be Jehovah’s WITNESSES.

Doubtless it is the same with the announcement that replaces the one about disfellowshipping. 
It used to be announced from time to time that “so and so has been disfellowshipped.” For several years now—what is it? maybe 10? it is “so and so is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.”
It gets the job done, and it avoids the problem of being attacked over the fact that “disfellowship” is not a word that appears in the Bible—and so villains try to spin it as an evil corporation of man-made rules “controlling” the minions. 
The revised announcement has all of the “upside” and none of the downside of the former one. “Upside” is in quotes, of course, because it is a downer when the announcement is made. It is a moment of silence, all fidgeting, daydreaming, and chattering halts. It is a very sad time, even if everyone concedes the necessity of it, and the road to recovery is not so plain at all. There may not BE a recovery. DF is a last-ditch measure of discipline, when all else has failed, to jolt the transgressor, but more importantly, to safeguard the congregation from the influence.
To be sure, it can be perceived as mean-spirited, and it certainly is here by many persons who in most cases are opposed to JWs regardless, but given the way humans are built, the case can be made that values of the congregation cannot be preserved “without spot from the world” any other way. That is the lesson drawn from the book Secular Faith, by Mark Smith—a book the WT has quoted for a separate but related reason:
https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/01/in-defense-of-shunning.html
Of course opposers will rail at it because the well-being of the congregation is of no concern to them.
If someone is doing the deeds and saying the sayings of Jehovah’s Witnesses, then that person is one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. If someone refuses to do that, how can it be said that he or she is still one of Jehovah’s Witnesses? The “improvement” of the new announcement over the old is that congregation members recall from the Bible just how a person who has served Jehovah and then willfully rejects that life is to be viewed. They think of “treat him as a tax collector and man of the nations,” that Jews had “no dealings” with. They think of “not even eating with such a man,” “never saying a greeting.” They will recall the counsel to “reject empty speeches that violate what is holy, for they will lead to more and more ungodliness, and their word will spread like gangrene,” (2 Timothy 2:16-17) and it comes to mind just how one deals with gangrene.
Thus, it is indisputably the Bible that directs congregation members. It is the Bible that tells them what to do, and for now, it is not illegal to follow the Bible. Opposers want to spin it that they are fighting a “corporation;” they are temporarily thwarted with this announcement. They are forced to reveal that it is not the corporation they are opposing, but God, insofar as the Bible represents his thinking, which to Jehovah’s Witnesses it does.
It is a better announcement than the previous one, not just for thwarting opposers, but also for us. It clarifies even for us that the Bible directs our conduct. The only “sin” that the “corporation” has committed is educating members as to what the Bible says on all aspects of life.
It allows more internal freedom to examine just what those verses above and others like it actually mean in all areas of life, such as the ones people carry on here about—ones involving minors, ones involving words as well as deeds, and what kind of words. All of this re-examination is going on now, I am convinced, even if every minor little tweak is not heralded with the announcement that malcontents insist upon, mostly so they can get right to work at undermining it.
With young people, the obvious tweak—and I think it happens now—will be to cut them some slack when they err, as young people almost by definition are apt to do. It is not to shut them out of the adult world of acting upon something once they come to know it is right. The late John Holt, a pioneer of homeschooling, used to maintain that juvenile delinquents are made that way—when they try to enter the world of adults and are shut out.
A sign that today indicates most Witnesses are well aware that the Bible directs their conduct, and not an organization, is the frequent complaints of those who have gone POMO—physically out as well as mentally out—that they are kept at a distance by family members even though no announcement was ever made—not of “disfellowshipping” nor “no longer one of JWs.” They rail and rail about this—the ‘brainwashing goes really deep,” they say. They cannot link their “shunning” to an announcement, and thus they are forced to conclude (though they refuse to) that members are allowing themselves to be directed by the Bible and not some human organization. Close family members have discerned that someone has turned away from Jehovah, and they don’t need an announcement to apply scriptural direction to the situation.
The man who studied the Bible with me and “brought me into the truth” had problems with this and went apostate himself—he may be sitting at Alan’s right hand now. Several were baptized through his efforts, and he later went back to try to undo some of the “damage” that he had done. To my knowledge, however, he had no success in this.
Douglas was an incredibly zealous man. His enthusiasm was boundless. He was a welder for the public utility, and I was assigned to be his assistant for a summer job in between semesters.
“Now according to the church, there’s far more wicked people than good, isn’t that true? For every good person, there has to be —how many?—say...100 wicked people? Right? Isn’t that what they teach?” he would gush, and then hit his punch line: “When was the last time you went to a funeral and the priest packed someone off to hell?!!!” I can hear him now, 40 years later.
After several weeks of such, he invited me to his house, where he conducted a classroom—about a dozen chairs were laid out, most of them filled—and he conducted a Bible study out of the Truth book. Soon after, or maybe it was before, he invited me to a Sunday meeting for a really good public talk, I thought. Same was true the next Sunday, and the next one after that. But on the fourth, he whispered to me, “This one is kind of a dog, but they are not usually like that.”
We had the incredible circumstance of an engineer who was so unbelievably inept that he would twiddle his thumbs for weeks on end, and those downstream from him, such as “his” welder and that one’s assistant, had nothing to do until he got his act together, which he never did. There must have been more to it than that—maybe he was someone’s relative—because even then that is not something that would normally happen. Speaking of one klutz, who had been fired, from an entirely different time, my Dad said, “You almost think that they could find a place for a donkey like him.” He said this because he came from a time and place in which large companies would do that. If they hired a man that turned out to be a clunker, they would say, “Ah, rats! Oh well—our bad. After all, he still has a family to support,” and they would give him a broom and find a spot for him where he could do minimal damage.
So it was that Don would witness to me 8 hours per day for several weeks, and neither he nor I were goofing off—there was literally nothing for us to do but await instructions that never came. Holy spirit had arranged for this engineer to be an idiot. (I just threw that line in for Alan, but having said that, the holy spirit is like the wind that you cannot see, and if anyone says holy spirit did this or that for me, even finding a mate, I never counter them—how would I know?) The first move was not his, but mine. This engineer didn’t get along too well with Douglas (nor with anyone else, as I recall) and he rebuked him at one point with, “You think you know so much just because you are one of those ‘Bible students!’” This intrigued me. I didn’t know that there was such a thing. 
“What do you mean ‘Bible student?’” I asked him later. “What’s that all about?” I had been brought up in a liberal Presbyterian church (it comes in several varieties) where few knew much about the Bible—at least not those that I knew of—and didn’t bemoan the loss. That was not why they attended. It was more of a social thing. I did not usually want to go. I hated being herded off with my siblings by mom, with dad’s full approval because it meant peach and quiet for him with the Sunday paper—I envied him, as he said, “religion is good for kids.” He never set foot in that church himself, and indeed was not very hospitable toward the minister. “Just remember who is the source of that contribution!” he told the poor fellow when he had come to call. My mom was a housewife—which was pretty much the norm back then, and did not otherwise work.
Seeng as I could not get out of it, I angled toward attending the church service itself, and not the Sunday School that I hated. I recall that there was some resistance to this from my mom, but in time I prevailed. I would there try to understand the Bible which was not explained—at most there was a ten-minute or so “sermon” to punctuate the service. I really did try to understand it, mostly because I liked the idea of understanding anything, but I could not understand it. I always assumed that it was my fault—I was not devoted enough, or studious enough, or persistent enough. I never dreamed that it was their fault.
I made the first move with this welder, not he with me. I think for this reason I will only go so far in “chasing” people in the ministry. “Well, the angels have to do something!” I have been known to say. Some Witnesses are so persistent with chasing down “interest” that they train householders not to show any, imo.
So.....fast forward now to after my baptism, and I run into Douglas at a circuit assembly. He is glad to see me, of course, and I him—we had met only one or two times after circumstances had taken us separate ways. This time he was different, however. This time he was not so enthused. This time he asked me—baptized less than a year—whether I thought ministerial servants and elders were really appointed by holy spirit. “Well, sure...I mean, I guess so,” I responded. It struck me as an odd question, and the next thing I know, he had gone apostate, he and his wife (though his wife later returned). In hindsight, I think that he felt he deserved to be a ministerial servant and was disgruntled at being passed over. In this case, all this bellyaching over being appointed by holy spirit stemmed from that fact that he wanted an office he not given. That doesn’t necessarily mean that it is so in every case.
I have seen this several times with different people. One brother—plainly immature, though he went through the motions, would actually storm out of the Kingdom Hall if new servants were announced and he was not one of them. (He never was, and subsequent events demonstrated what a wise omission that was.)
A variation of this happened within the last few months. An unbaptized woman whose family has been loosely associated but inactive as long as anyone can remember, came to the hall yesterday—she rarely does. I resolved to speak with her, and as she headed out during the song, I followed her and caught up with her in the parking lot. I asked her about her son, who had been recently baptized, had been very enthused for a time, volunteering for many things, and then had disappeared, taking a job that required about an hour commute both ways. I didn’t play spiritual concerns, but personal ones. “Doesn’t matter to me just now when he returns, or even if he does. How is he doing?” I framed it.
She told me that she had been stressed out dealing with all the rubbish, as though making amends for leaving in such a rush, and I made it clear that I didn’t care about that, but about her. Thinking I had an “in,” I repackaged a comment I made during the Watchtower study at a paragraph stating how many persons feel unfulfilled and stressed out by their careers. I had said: “Being of that age, many I know are retiring. Sometimes they are Witnesses, sometimes they are non-Witnesses, sometimes they are people I meet in the ministry. Almost always they include the observation that they just can’t take the baloney anymore—and they don’t always say ‘baloney.’”
I repeated this line to the woman in the parking lot, using the real word, and she replied that she hadn’t been speaking of the BS of the world—“you expect that,” she said, but “the BS here” is what she was talking about. I laughed. “Oh, the bullshit here,” I repeated. I really don’t think there is any—at least not enough as might be expected anywhere that people are involved, but I didn’t want to overreact. I tried to draw her out, promising that I would not put everything she said on the internet.
She was miffed that her son had not been made a ministerial servant! That was the extent of it—at least in this case. He had done everything asked of him, he had volunteered for this and that, and they had not made him a servant! “Does he think that he was used?” I ventured, and I got the impression that this is far more her complaint than his—that is not to say that he doesn’t share it. At any rate, I said that I would love to see him again, that I have tried—for I was one of those ones who he volunteered to help when I was slogging through some unexpected troubles. 
Probably there is more to the story. The son was very zealous, and likable in every way, but he was new enough that I can’t quite imagine him expecting an appointment, much less becoming embittered with it not coming his way. I’ll speak with him in time—he really was a good sort, and probably still is. He had some that were trying to discourage him when he was putting himself out there—maybe they in time prevailed. Probably it is Alan. “Had enough of that overbearing know-it-all, yet?” I will ask him. “I know @Araunawishes to God that she had never learned of his existance”
 

It's not up to admin. It's the @The Librarian who is in charge of this club. And no, it's not me or JWI or TTH or JTR or anyone else in this club.

She is disagreeing with you, that’s all, and not being mean about it.
Grown-ups are usually able to handle that without “sinning.”

In one cell one needs a minimum of 150 proteins to function. A protein has a specific sequence of DNA material that can only fit in a specific way and is folded in a specific way. ..... very complex. 
Nano-bio-engineers work together in groups and take months to produce only one chemical needed for such a protein........ with perfect conditions in the lab, many sets of brainy ideas.  This if for only one chemical that is needed to build ONE complex protein.  
Then every cell has a complex energy factory - the mitochondria -  which by the way has its own separate DNA, which can only be inherited from a woman....... (Eve).   Apart from this we have the transport system in the cell........... and most of all the important MEMBRANE.    If the membrane was not there (in the chemical soup you believe in..... )  the cell material would not have been able to stay together...... the material would have dissipated and NEVER EVER formed a cell. ..... and then the cell still needs LIFE..... The mechanisms to maintain the cell is much more complex than evolutionists can imagine.   Evolution deliberately simplifies the cell, its mechanics and structure.
So - who of us has been duped?   The one who has put his faith in "human intelligence" or the one who has realized there is a higher intelligence. 
Mathematically it is impossible to get even one cell developed in 500 billion years - we need time beyond what scientists are saying is the age of the universe.
 

Definitely, I do not get pro-creation papers in my mailbox......I read the newest information to see the flaws in it - for myself.
For example:  when they found more than 10 proteins in dinosaur bones-  it pointed to a younger earth.  The next paper was a rebuttal.  They postulated that the iron in the blood must have preserved the proteins in the bones. They proved in the paper that iron CAN preserve proteins - which is the only information I agree with.
The problem I had with that  postulation was is this: large amounts of blood are not available in the bones and  while one may find a centrifuge in a lab to concentrate the iron for a test ......  I have never seen a dinosaur bone with a built-in centrifuge to clump the iron in the blood together to preserve the bones.  No-one spotted the absurdity that one cannot compare what happens in a lab to what happens in nature. 
I can give you another example with Mr Dawkins.  He made a big do about analysing and cutting out the nerve of a giraffe on TV  and demonstrating how unneccesary it was for the nerve to curve around the heart - he said it was bad "design"..... a left over from evolution.
As an African I immediately spotted his lack of understanding of animals and lack of thinking things through.  Giraffes have exceptionally long necks and need the heart to get feedback of the pressure to get the blood to the head..... the design is perfect...... there are other reasons as well......in our bodies "everything"  is connected ...... which is one of the several complexities which  point to design.
For example: one needs the brain to interpret what the eyes see.  The eyes in its complex design cannot see without the brain, which interprets the information.  Which one came first? They eye or the brain.... when they both need each other to functio, it means there was pre-existing  "information" that the other organ would exist. This indicates a presence of "coordinated information" or "pre-knowledge"......... a form of intelligence.
Male and female organs that developed separately yet are perfectly biologically coordinated.... each providing only HALF of the genetic material needed to produce a new life etc..... I can go on and on....
Obviously - one of us is a fanatic about " religion" ...... and I know it is not me.   SCIENCE is not as infallible as you thought.... scientists are often egotists...... they do not always go in the direction the truth leads them but in the direction where they can publish papers.  So your Mommy Science has fed you a lot of claptrap and it does not even have good motives. 
..... 
According to science there was an ice age inbetween..  and the  "goldilocks" conditions " over such a long period of time is a fallacy.   
 

That old hen

I presume @admin has given up on keeping things on topic  

This is an excellent point, brilliantly stated as usual. He clearly has no business doing what he is doing. He is without a doubt an agnostic or atheist, since most secular Jews are. He is not supposed to side with anyone who is religious! It is not allowed. That proves he is a hypocrite.
He is so stupid that he probably thinks Berlin is a city in Germany.

The Bible says that everything that God initially created was "good". Everything that Satan created was bad. The world then became a paradox of good and bad. The question arose whether the arbiter of what was good, was justified to decide what was bad. Obviously, since he was the supreme judge and arbiter of all things. On top of that, was he justified in destroying or removing what was bad. The answer has always been yes, because his love, together with justice dictates that this must be done. 
Creation; predators, eating other creatures is not bad, since the predator depends on the primary consumer for survival. My great grandmother kept rabbits for food. She loved them all and took good care of them, they all had names too. When it came time for Sunday dinner, she lovingly took one out of the pen and bopped it over the head. Benjamin had no idea what had hit him as he blacked out within a split second, was dead within a minute, and cooking in the pot within an hour. His buddies never even noticed he had gone missing. Was that an unloving thing my great grandma did? I suppose it depends on who you ask. But the one to decide whether this is unloving or not would be the creator. Humans have differing views, but the rightful arbiter is God.

The Bible says that everything that God initially created was "good". Everything that Satan created was bad. The world then became a paradox of good and bad. The question arose whether the arbiter of what was good, was justified to decide what was bad. Obviously, since he was the supreme judge and arbiter of all things. On top of that, was he justified in destroying or removing what was bad. The answer has always been yes, because his love, together with justice dictates that this must be done. 
Creation; predators, eating other creatures is not bad, since the predator depends on the primary consumer for survival. My great grandmother kept rabbits for food. She loved them all and took good care of them, they all had names too. When it came time for Sunday dinner, she lovingly took one out of the pen and bopped it over the head. Benjamin had no idea what had hit him as he blacked out within a split second, was dead within a minute, and cooking in the pot within an hour. His buddies never even noticed he had gone missing. Was that an unloving thing my great grandma did? I suppose it depends on who you ask. But the one to decide whether this is unloving or not would be the creator. Humans have differing views, but the rightful arbiter is God.

Good point Srecko. I don't think it's entirely fair to blame the GB for creating a "certain" environment inside congregations though.
In fact, (we know everything passes through the GB's hands for approval, if they haven't written it themselves) the above expressions must be what the GB agree with. Time and again I see that it is not the questions that are asked, or even expressing an opinion contrary to their own, but it's the way this is done and what is the the purpose for doing it. Most elders are willing to hear an opinion, and do not resent those who express an opinion contrary to their own. I know that from personal experience. However, if the motive is to exult your own ideas, to force people to listen to them over and over again, and to try and make people see it your way, then that is stirring up contentions and is eroding peace in the congregation. And those who erode peace, will eventually find themselves kicked out sooner or later. Just to illustrate; I told a few elders, in no uncertain terms, that I cannot agree with the "overlapping generation" idea, and I left it at that. No one has ever come after me, or tried to convince me otherwise, and we all remain good friends. Now you know what would happen if I started to aggressively push my opinion on every single person I came into contact with.
In another instance; I rattled one sister's cage (it means irritated her) during a discussion in the car during field service (in the US a car load of friends go out). We were all talking about animals being friends in the paradise. I voiced my opinion that I believe there will still be the same food chain as there is now, with carnivores consuming the herbivores. I explained why I think that, but this one sister was adamant that lions will eat grass and will be buddies with the sheep. But we didn't argue who is right and who is wrong. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, as long as you are not trying to beat the other person over the head with it. 
So I think it is assumed that 'questioning and expressing an opinion' will be done in a civil way, to which those in a position of authority should have no trouble listening.
 
 

To be fair to AlanF, I can understand how people can misinterpret (and feel duped, in AlanF's case) regarding how the holy spirit actually operates. There have been various insinuations in publications throughout the years, (mainly early years) and personal speculation to boot. There are still some friends who believe holy spirit went out and found them a mate.

You might be right to a certain extent, this may even have been created inadvertently. However now, I see a distinct move away from that. JWs are now going to have to assimilate that the GB (by their own admission) produces imperfect spiritual food.

Good point Srecko. I don't think it's entirely fair to blame the GB for creating a "certain" environment inside congregations though.
In fact, (we know everything passes through the GB's hands for approval, if they haven't written it themselves) the above expressions must be what the GB agree with. Time and again I see that it is not the questions that are asked, or even expressing an opinion contrary to their own, but it's the way this is done and what is the the purpose for doing it. Most elders are willing to hear an opinion, and do not resent those who express an opinion contrary to their own. I know that from personal experience. However, if the motive is to exult your own ideas, to force people to listen to them over and over again, and to try and make people see it your way, then that is stirring up contentions and is eroding peace in the congregation. And those who erode peace, will eventually find themselves kicked out sooner or later. Just to illustrate; I told a few elders, in no uncertain terms, that I cannot agree with the "overlapping generation" idea, and I left it at that. No one has ever come after me, or tried to convince me otherwise, and we all remain good friends. Now you know what would happen if I started to aggressively push my opinion on every single person I came into contact with.
In another instance; I rattled one sister's cage (it means irritated her) during a discussion in the car during field service (in the US a car load of friends go out). We were all talking about animals being friends in the paradise. I voiced my opinion that I believe there will still be the same food chain as there is now, with carnivores consuming the herbivores. I explained why I think that, but this one sister was adamant that lions will eat grass and will be buddies with the sheep. But we didn't argue who is right and who is wrong. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, as long as you are not trying to beat the other person over the head with it. 
So I think it is assumed that 'questioning and expressing an opinion' will be done in a civil way, to which those in a position of authority should have no trouble listening.
 
 

If he hung his head, it was not in shame. It was in dismay at the literalism.
He was probably wondering, “How did this fellow ever get past ‘I and the father are one’ to become a Witness in the first place?
He was probably wondering, “How did this fellow ever come to believe in God?” since the cosmonauts traveled through the heavens and didn’t see him.
Lord, save us from the literalists.
By definition, you cannot get to see spiritual things. It is the wind that blows where it will and you hear the sound of it but cannot otherwise nail it down. (John 3:8)
In the ministry, I will not argue with a trinitarian (having learned from experience). I say, “95% of the scriptures that are said to prove the trinity would, if they were seen in any other context, be instantly dismissed as figure of speech.” Yet somehow grown persons make themselves children when they see them in the Bible, and insist: “The Bible SAYS what it MEANS and MEANS what it SAYS.” I simply cannot play that game. I don’t want to prove that “crocodile tears” does not mean the crying person is a crocodile. I don’t want to have to produce the bush after I have told someone not to beat around it. I don’t want to explain to a grown-up that there is no Santa Claus.
I have never had this problem at all of demanding just HOW elders are appointed by holy spirit. Jesus said (above) that it can’t be done. It is enough to say that appointees are measured against the Bible template, which is an acknowledged product of holy spirit, the measuring is done by existing elders, and is cleared by HQ, where presumably there is a file cabinet stuffed with holy spirit.
I do note, however—I mean it clicks together just now—a possible reason for that last letter from the circuit overseer. “I have appointed” so-and-so as an elder in the congregation, he said. It is a tactic to stay one step ahead of the scoundrels who are adept at “framing mischief by decree” to make clear that, contrary to their insistence that they are fighting a “corporation,” what they are actually fighting is the Bible itself, and to the extent that the Bible is God’s Word, which we believe that it is, God himself. Verses directly say that traveling ministers appointed elders. Frame it the same way today so that they must redirect their attack against scripture itself and thereby reveal exactly what is their desire. Many changed wordings and announcements likely come about for the same reason, causing JTR to rant about “legal machinations,” but it cannot be any other way, because attacks are often framed legally.
After changing the wording, then say, as did G Jackson, “the Bible says that there will be such and such, and we are doing our best to fulfill that pattern.” Surely THAT should not be illegal.
(What he said was: “Jesus said that in the last days - and Jehovah's Witnesses believe these are the last  days - there would be a slave, a group of persons who would have responsibility to care for the spiritual food. So in that respect, we view ourselves as trying to fulfill that role")
Davey the Kid, from the final chapter of Tom Irregardless and Me, is a real person, immensely capable, who served several years at Bethel. He died a few years back, so perhaps I could give his last name, but then some sorehead here will produce evidence that he farted once and will start a thread about that. Davey related that, while at Bethel, visitors would tour and some would say that they could feel holy spirit in the hallways. You cannot literally feel holy spirit in the hallways, Davey said, as he went on to discuss just how holy spirit can be expected to back those who do God’s will, as they do in a focused way at Bethel. 
I can picture 99 persons in the audience—who had said they felt holy spirit in the hallways—smiling at themselves that they ever thought they could literally feel holy spirit in the hallways, and AlanF stomping out of the building now that they have admitted to LYING to him for all these years.