Anna

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.
 
 

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.
 
 

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.
 
 

One thing I really enjoy from the Governing Body is their new series of Animations, similar to the Caleb and Sophia animated cartoons, about how in the New System, all animals will be at peace with each other, play together, and be happy.
I have six dogs, and it's important to me that they have happy lives.  I enjoy watching them play and frolic, and just peacefully sleep in their doghouses, or on the sofa, in the living room.  I even buy them treats, and dog toys to play with.
Without further ado, here is a clip from the Writing Department's latest animated cartoon, of how the animals will all live in peace and harmony, in the Paradise earth ....  It's called "Wild Alex in the Paradise Regained".
Enjoy!

Wild Alex in the Paradise Regained. .mp4  
I guess we will all have to wait until there is some "new light" ,,, to see how it turns out !
 
 

My detective skills are being criticized and some unkind ones are doing the same with my writing skills. One unkind person even said, “Don’t quit your day job.”
Just to be on the safe side, I have resolved to keep my position as head of the glass department for Tesla Motors.

That's funny. I was very close at one time in calling the elders in his ex-congregation to alert them of a potential pedophile in the congregation because John Butler wouldn't do it. Then he kind of decided he would alert the police, which he said he did, so I let it go.

I would just like to say that if I did have the power to ban someone, I would not, as I believe EVERYONE should have the right to publicly demonstrate what a complete equestrian posterior excretory bodily orifice he or she is.
But then again, I am a Barbarian.
...... entertainment is where you find it.

Obviously this is a rhetorical question 
Same thing, the GB are. Everything passes through the GB. That is not to say they ignore input from each other, and others in the various departments at Bethel.
 
Third person writing style is more objective. Sometimes they, the GB get more personal and say "we, the GB have decided.....etc"  But when it comes to publications, read by millions, they think it's more appropriate to use the third person so it's, like I said, more objective. Plus, the publications are not an autobiography. It wasn't that long ago when most JWS didn't even know who the members of the GB were. Or only had very slight knowledge. But there are autobiographical articles (life stories) about members of the GB in the publications written in the first person.
(Call it theatrics, false modesty or whatever, but you can't please everyone. Now, opposers are complaining that the GB are in the limelight TOO much).
 
 
 
oooh...now his quote disappeared...

John Butler was banned because he went too far in calling for illegal harm to be done against some public people. Not because of his stance on the child abuse matter. Once you cross the law you are definitely banned.
Billy the Kid aka Allen Smith..... I have tolerated on many occasions.. until soon thereafter he is so rude and abusive toward other members I have to ban him. He needs to find another sandbox to go play in. Not this one.
I'm not saying that others don't at times get abusive..... but my tolerance with Allen Smith is very thin... he "rubs me the wrong way" every time. 
-----------
 

Oh. That explains it. I just saw your words from before and wondered what THAT was all about?
He said something and then unsaid it, apparently.

Obviously this is a rhetorical question 
Same thing, the GB are. Everything passes through the GB. That is not to say they ignore input from each other, and others in the various departments at Bethel.
 
Third person writing style is more objective. Sometimes they, the GB get more personal and say "we, the GB have decided.....etc"  But when it comes to publications, read by millions, they think it's more appropriate to use the third person so it's, like I said, more objective. Plus, the publications are not an autobiography. It wasn't that long ago when most JWS didn't even know who the members of the GB were. Or only had very slight knowledge. But there are autobiographical articles (life stories) about members of the GB in the publications written in the first person.
(Call it theatrics, false modesty or whatever, but you can't please everyone. Now, opposers are complaining that the GB are in the limelight TOO much).
 
 
 
oooh...now his quote disappeared...

You will find it's not "people" in general who judge too quickly, but it is ex-JWs. People in general do understand the complexities. Even the ARC understands the complexities, and so do prosecuting lawyers. But of course neither are in the business to understand, but to hopefully help remedy the situation and to get justice (well in the case of the lawyers; to get lots of $$$$ too, lets be honest).

They have actuality said they don't know on a number of occasions, in written form as well as verbally. On the other occasions they believed they knew. As with the overlapping generation, they believe they know, and right now, we can't say categorically that they are wrong. They may be right. Only time will tell. 

So are you saying the Wt/GB themselves has never said they were wrong?

I feel sorry for Allen Smith. I really do.

Why I enjoyed your piece : it cclearly identifies the cantankerous way all darwinists act...... the religion seems to affect them this way.   Mr Dawkins has embarrassed himself quite a lot since he became a celebrity for the cause...... 
I think the best video I saw of him is when he said that aliens seeded the earth. ..... in a discussion on the origins of life. ..

Tweeted Richard Dawkins one fine day (11/13/19): “You could easily spot any Religion of Peace. Its extremist members would be extremely peaceful” 
Can it be? Is Richard Dawkins referring to Jehovah’s Witnesses—universally known for being “extremely peaceful” yet declared “extremists” in Russia? If so, I will take back the relatively few bad things I have said about him.
I have not really said THAT many bad things about him. At times, I have even been complimentary. When he blessed the atheist buses rolling out in London, I said that he raised a good point—his was a reaction to existing “hellfire’ buses, with advertising from the church. He did wuss-out, though, with a: “There probably is no God.” Probably?
It wasn’t until I began following him on Twitter, though, that I noticed how breathtakingly contemptuous he was toward anyone who disagreed with him—not merely about God, but also on geopolitical things—and then I did say a few mean things. For example, I said of him that “he does not suffer fools gladly, and a fool is anyone who disagrees with him.”
However, he has largely repented over this online meanness. I’ve noticed it over the months. He has not banished it entirely, but it is much less prevalent, so that I regret that I ever said what I did. 
The temptation to be disdainful of opponents is well-nigh irresistible, particularly if you think that they are willfully choosing ignorance. I have (more or less) mastered the temptation, of course, but I have a source of effective and unending counsel that he does not.
This is no more concisely stated than it was at a recent Watchtower Study. A Bible verse considered how we ought “do nothing out of contentiousness or out of egotism, but with humility consider others superior to you.” (Philippians 2:3) Practically speaking, this advice is not easy to implement. It may even strike one as nonsensical—how can everyone be superior to everyone else? Said that Watchtower: “The humble person acknowledges that everyone is superior to him in some way.—Phil. 2:3, 4.” 
Of course. In some way everyone is superior to everyone else. Search for that way, hone in on it like a laser beam, and it will not be so difficult to treat even opponents with respect. “Disagree without being disagreeable” is the catchphrase today.
But Professor Dawkins does not have this advantage. Much of his tradition would sway him in just the opposite “survival of the fittest” direction. So he must be given credit for his new, somewhat softer, online personality. Possibly someone who has his best interests at heart—perhaps his wife—said, “Richard, you sure do come across as a cantankerous crank on Twitter,” and he deliberately walked it back. It’s commendable.
Now, I don’t think Richard had Jehovah’s Witnesses in mind with his tweet. He probably has formed his views of them through the contributions of their “apostate” contingent, and those views could hardly be blacker. I looked down among his comments to see whether any of those nasties had reared their heads. Perhaps here was an example:
“Not entirely true. Extremists usually have their own misinterpretation of scriptures.”
I responded to this one: “If “misinterpretation” results in a religion of peace, perhaps it is not a misinterpretation after all. Perhaps the mainline view is a misinterpretation.” Is that not a no-brainer? 
Another one, disagreeing with the above tweet: “Actually no. Most extremists do exactly what is written in their book. ‘Misinterpretation’ is used as an argument by believers that cherry pick morals that fit our secular ethics today.”
I know this type, too. This is the type that finds slavery in the Bible or war in the Old Testament and rails at the “hypocrisy.” I responded to this fellow as well:
“Everything has a historical context and to deliberately ignore such context is to be intellectually dishonest. If our side does it to theirs, we never hear the end of it.”
He blew up at this reference to context. Evil is evil, he carried on, across all places and time-frames. These characters are very predictable—you could even write their lines for them and not be too far off.
Has “critical thinking” made us all nincompoops? It was once thought the most intelligent thing in the world to consider historical backdrop; one was irresponsible, even deceitful, not to do it. Very well. If he is going to trash, with blinders affixed, the source that I hold dear, I will do the same with his source:
“You should turn your critical thinking skills upon Ancient Greece, the definer of it. When time travel is invented, history revisionists will give a friendly wave to American slaveholding forefathers as they race back in time to fetch wicked Greek pedophiles—it was an enshrined value of that world—back in irons.”
He was not chastened by this. Hijacking Twitter as his personal courtroom, he cross-examined:
“Is the holding and beating of slaves, as described in Exodus, morally acceptable? Yes or no?”
I countered: “Is the raping of children as endorsed by Ancient Greek society morally acceptable? Yes or no?”
Incredibly, he was not dissuaded. “Last chance!” he shot back. “Is the holding and beating of slaves, as described in Exodus, morally acceptable? Yes or no?”
“To the blockheads, I became a blockhead.”—Paul (sort of) —1 Corinthians 9:19-22,” I tweeted back: “Two can play the game of obstinacy. Last chance: Is the rape of children—it was enshrined in Ancient Greek society—morally acceptable? Yes or no?”
Then I went away, and when I came back, he had deleted all this tweets so that it was hard for me to reconstruct the thread. However, someone else had pointed out a grave sin I had committed:
“Thomas you are guilty of the moral equivalence fallacy.” Am I? I suppose. You can sort of guess by the wording just what that phrase means—I had not heard it before. At least it is in English. I once heard a theologian quip that if there is a Latin phrase and a perfectly clear English phrase that means the same thing, always use the Latin phrase so people will know that you are educated. But my “moral equivalence fallacy” is still is no more than considering historical context, a praiseworthy intellectual technique for all time periods except ours. 
Besides, I actually had posted something about slavery long ago. But it is not a topic so simple that it can be hashed out in a few tweets, and so I declined to go there with this fellow, who would debate all the sub-points. If God corrected every human injustice the moment it manifested itself, there would be nothing left. The entire premise of the Bible is that human-rule is unjust in itself and that God allows a period of time for that to be clearly manifested before bringing in his kingdom—the one referred to in the “Lord’s prayer”—to straighten it all out. In the meantime, the very ones who work themselves into a lather at religion “brainwashing” people are livid that God did not brainwash slavery away once humans settled upon it as a fine economic underpinning.
If Dawkins’s tweet and my response hangs around long enough before burial in the Twitter feed, I would expect some of our malcontents to observe as they did in Russia, where the only evidence of extremism cited is proclaiming “a religious view of supremacy.” Huge protest will come at how Jehovah’s Witnesses practice shunning and thus “destroy” relationships and even family. But views inevitably translate into consequences and policies. Refusal to “come together” with those who insist on diametrically opposed views is hardly the “extremism” of ISIS—and yet the Russian Supreme Court has declared that it is, with the full backing in principle of those from the ex-JW community—the ones who go crusading, which is perhaps 10%.
I’m going to write this up as a post and append it to his thread. Let’s see what happens. Probably nothing, but you never know.
Plus, let’s expand on that particular Watchtower some more. The particular article covered was entitled: “Jehovah Values His Humble Servants” (September 2019 issue—study edition)
Unlike nearly all religious services, Witness meetings are ones that you can prepare for. You can comment during them. They are studies of the sacred book, not just impromptu rap sessions, acquiescencing to ceremony, or sitting through someone else’s sermon. You can prepare for them, and you are benefited, as in any classroom, when you do. The focus here, as it so often is, is on practical application. 
Humility draws persons to us. Haughtiness repels them, and thus makes next to impossible the mantra to “come together.”
My own comment, when the time was right, was that haughty people can only accomplish so much—it may be a great deal, for haughty people are often very capable people—but eventually they run up against the fact that nobody else can stand them, and so people are motivated to undercut their ideas, even if they are good ones, out of sheer payback for ugliness. Humble people, on the other hand, may be far less capable individually, but their efforts add up. They know how to cooperate and yield to each other in a way that haughty people do not.
Someone else on that Dawkins thread, an amateur wit, played with that them of unlikely extremists: “Jehova's witnesses are peaceful but their extremists are better extremely annoying...”
Why fight this? It is a viewpoint. Viewpoints are not wrong, because they are viewpoints—right or wrong doesn’t enter into the equation. Better to roll with it. I was indeed on a roll, and so I tweeted back: 
“I will grant that they can be. Still, if you had a choice between a team of JWs approaching your door and a team of ISIS members, you would (hopefully) choose theformer. Those 2 groups, and only those 2 groups are officially declared “extremist” in Russia.”
And with that, I included a link to my ebook, “Dear Mr. Putin - Jehovah’s Witnesses Write Russia.” I am shameless in that. No matter how many books I sell, it is not enough. I don’t sell them, anyway. The book is free, a labor of love. It is an application of the theme: “If you have something important to say, don’t hide it behind a paywall.” It is the only, to my knowledge, complete history of events leading up to and beyond the 2017 ban of the Witness organization in Russia.
As to the latest developments there, another one was herded off to prison, who, making the best of a sour situation, or perhaps genuinely finding value there, said: "I want to thank … prosecution. I don't just thank you, but thank you very much, because thanks to you my faith has become stronger … I see I'm on the right path."
Of course. It is unreasonable to oppose so vehemently a people totally honest, hard-working, and given to peace—and yet the Bible says that such will exactly happen. How can it not serve to strengthen faith?

I think a lot of people suspected that pretty quickly, especially as their top 3 issues appear to be the same, and as time goes on, even their pet peeves match up. I don't know for sure that JB was "DF'd" from the site, but it's the impression I got because there was some kind of warning, and then he was gone. At this point if they are the same, I don't think it matters in the slightest. But the reason I jump in on this topic is because I don't want anyone to be confused with my use of the term DF. 
According to JB, he was treated as if DF'd in his congregation, even though he was not officially DF'd by a committee of elders. Not all of the reasons for this treatment were clear. Now that you have suspected that 4Jah2me was DF'd, I just figured that the JB story ought to be a reminder that it's always possible 4Jah2me was never DF'd either. 

You will find it's not "people" in general who judge too quickly, but it is ex-JWs. People in general do understand the complexities. Even the ARC understands the complexities, and so do prosecuting lawyers. But of course neither are in the business to understand, but to hopefully help remedy the situation and to get justice (well in the case of the lawyers; to get lots of $$$$ too, lets be honest).

No. I have sent in a couple questions about parousia/synteleia and a question about other interpretations of Matthew 24, but never about Luke's version.

Just because men may or may not apply scripture properly does not automatically mean all elders are NOT appointed by holy spirit. In any case, this is really a different matter altogether. No one can apply scripture perfectly, but they can do their best, however, in the case under discussion, the appointment of elders, men are limited through no fault of their own, because they can only act on what they see, they can't help that. They might be applying the scripture quite correctly, but it's contingent on the person they are considering appointing to actually qualify. But, and we are going round in circles, the elders can only see what is apparent. Therefore logically, if they really do not meet these qualifications, because they have deceptively hidden some pertinent details, or if it was assumed that past sins will no longer occur but they do, then holy spirit was not involved in the appointing, regardless whether men have appointed the person or not. So there are three scenarios, correct appointment,  erroneous appointment, and appointment that is later withdrawn. In the second scenario, the erroneous appointment,  it can happen that a prospective candidate, who is married, is very clever at hiding the fact that he has a lover on the side. Outwardly, he meets all the requirements, and he is appointed an elder. No holy spirit involved there, obviously. Then in the third case, there is the candidate who really meets all the requirements, he is appointed, and it can be said that holy spirit was involved. However, later, that same man acquires a lover on the side, and keeps it well hidden. It is then obvious that he no longer meets the requirements, and holy spirit is no longer involved.
The third scenario illustrates that holy spirit, once given, doesn't mean it can't be withdrawn. Think Judas Iscariot. Similarly, once someone is appointed by holy spirit, doesn't mean that appointment can't be made obsolete, removed. So how would we know? We may not know. But the scriptures say "that which is carefully hidden WILL be exposed".
I don't see how I've done that. What are they claiming that's false? Just because Greenlees was apparently not appointed by holy spirit, but by men, doesn't mean the same thing applies to all of them.
JWS believe that the head of the congregation is Jesus, and that he knows who is who and what is going on, even though men may not know. So we trust that whatever corrections are needed, they will happen.
You mean ex-JWs emailing Angus Stewart?
I am not talking about a theoretical exercise, I am talking about an actual case. I read the whole transcript (all several hundred pages of it).
I can’t comment on cases unless I am able to read all the court transcripts of the case. So you telling me about “sordid details” and “cover ups” is of no real help to me. Although I am not denying that cover ups have happened.
Are you talking about victims BCG, and BCB? Because if you are, then I do not recall any attempts at covering up abuse. But I do recall there being inappropriate handling of the issue, for example for the victim to have to face her abuser.  The ARC identified areas such as that, and others, where the policies of JWS could be improved, and then made recommendations. These recommendations were taken on board and are now implemented, and are part of the JW policy on Child Protection. I am sure you have read it. Furthermore as you know, the ARC was set up in recognition of CSA problems in various institutions, not just JWS.
This sounds like a case of semantics to me. I could say that Julia Child did not direct me, but I allowed her instructions in the cook book to direct me. And if those instructions were detailed enough, then I probably turned out a good meal. However, if I started chopping the onion in quarters, instead of small pieces, as stated in the recipe, then Julia Child would not be there to personally correct me. So if my meal turned out less than perfect, then it was because I had not followed Julia’s instructions properly, regardless whether she was there in person or not. But really, this is what the Bible is. Christians try to follow it as best as they can. The idea of appointment by holy spirit is a scriptural idea and it is assumed that if one qualifies as per Timothy, then it can be said that one is working in harmony with God and his holy spirit in that appointment, therefore to put it another way: the appointment is by holy spirit. I guess you would prefer appointed in harmony with holy spirit, rather than appointed by it. But don’t think I don’t know the real reason why you are bringing all this up. Your point is that saying “appointed by”, somehow makes the rank and file imagine that this is something special, and under direct guidance of God.  But we have already established that this cannot always be the case. (But also, that does not automatically mean that it is never the case). Regardless, Paul writes Christians should be obedient to those taking the lead. This does not mean we are going to obey indiscriminately. I guess because the apostle Paul assumed that he was talking to intelligent and reasonable people, he did not see the need to insert the proviso “unless they are asking you to do something bad” .  Peter understood, when he said “we must obey God as ruler rather than man”. Which brings me to your next point:
No, first and foremost God must be obeyed. So if the GB were to ask someone to do something that is not supported in scripture, or that goes against scripture, no JW should obey.
As I said further above, you might have concluded that, but not me. 
Not only me, but most JWS see evidence of God's spirit not only in their lives, but in the way the organization operates, in spite of imperfections. Sorry to disappoint you. 

Just because men may or may not apply scripture properly does not automatically mean all elders are NOT appointed by holy spirit. In any case, this is really a different matter altogether. No one can apply scripture perfectly, but they can do their best, however, in the case under discussion, the appointment of elders, men are limited through no fault of their own, because they can only act on what they see, they can't help that. They might be applying the scripture quite correctly, but it's contingent on the person they are considering appointing to actually qualify. But, and we are going round in circles, the elders can only see what is apparent. Therefore logically, if they really do not meet these qualifications, because they have deceptively hidden some pertinent details, or if it was assumed that past sins will no longer occur but they do, then holy spirit was not involved in the appointing, regardless whether men have appointed the person or not. So there are three scenarios, correct appointment,  erroneous appointment, and appointment that is later withdrawn. In the second scenario, the erroneous appointment,  it can happen that a prospective candidate, who is married, is very clever at hiding the fact that he has a lover on the side. Outwardly, he meets all the requirements, and he is appointed an elder. No holy spirit involved there, obviously. Then in the third case, there is the candidate who really meets all the requirements, he is appointed, and it can be said that holy spirit was involved. However, later, that same man acquires a lover on the side, and keeps it well hidden. It is then obvious that he no longer meets the requirements, and holy spirit is no longer involved.
The third scenario illustrates that holy spirit, once given, doesn't mean it can't be withdrawn. Think Judas Iscariot. Similarly, once someone is appointed by holy spirit, doesn't mean that appointment can't be made obsolete, removed. So how would we know? We may not know. But the scriptures say "that which is carefully hidden WILL be exposed".
I don't see how I've done that. What are they claiming that's false? Just because Greenlees was apparently not appointed by holy spirit, but by men, doesn't mean the same thing applies to all of them.
JWS believe that the head of the congregation is Jesus, and that he knows who is who and what is going on, even though men may not know. So we trust that whatever corrections are needed, they will happen.
You mean ex-JWs emailing Angus Stewart?
I am not talking about a theoretical exercise, I am talking about an actual case. I read the whole transcript (all several hundred pages of it).
I can’t comment on cases unless I am able to read all the court transcripts of the case. So you telling me about “sordid details” and “cover ups” is of no real help to me. Although I am not denying that cover ups have happened.
Are you talking about victims BCG, and BCB? Because if you are, then I do not recall any attempts at covering up abuse. But I do recall there being inappropriate handling of the issue, for example for the victim to have to face her abuser.  The ARC identified areas such as that, and others, where the policies of JWS could be improved, and then made recommendations. These recommendations were taken on board and are now implemented, and are part of the JW policy on Child Protection. I am sure you have read it. Furthermore as you know, the ARC was set up in recognition of CSA problems in various institutions, not just JWS.
This sounds like a case of semantics to me. I could say that Julia Child did not direct me, but I allowed her instructions in the cook book to direct me. And if those instructions were detailed enough, then I probably turned out a good meal. However, if I started chopping the onion in quarters, instead of small pieces, as stated in the recipe, then Julia Child would not be there to personally correct me. So if my meal turned out less than perfect, then it was because I had not followed Julia’s instructions properly, regardless whether she was there in person or not. But really, this is what the Bible is. Christians try to follow it as best as they can. The idea of appointment by holy spirit is a scriptural idea and it is assumed that if one qualifies as per Timothy, then it can be said that one is working in harmony with God and his holy spirit in that appointment, therefore to put it another way: the appointment is by holy spirit. I guess you would prefer appointed in harmony with holy spirit, rather than appointed by it. But don’t think I don’t know the real reason why you are bringing all this up. Your point is that saying “appointed by”, somehow makes the rank and file imagine that this is something special, and under direct guidance of God.  But we have already established that this cannot always be the case. (But also, that does not automatically mean that it is never the case). Regardless, Paul writes Christians should be obedient to those taking the lead. This does not mean we are going to obey indiscriminately. I guess because the apostle Paul assumed that he was talking to intelligent and reasonable people, he did not see the need to insert the proviso “unless they are asking you to do something bad” .  Peter understood, when he said “we must obey God as ruler rather than man”. Which brings me to your next point:
No, first and foremost God must be obeyed. So if the GB were to ask someone to do something that is not supported in scripture, or that goes against scripture, no JW should obey.
As I said further above, you might have concluded that, but not me. 
Not only me, but most JWS see evidence of God's spirit not only in their lives, but in the way the organization operates, in spite of imperfections. Sorry to disappoint you. 

Just because men may or may not apply scripture properly does not automatically mean all elders are NOT appointed by holy spirit. In any case, this is really a different matter altogether. No one can apply scripture perfectly, but they can do their best, however, in the case under discussion, the appointment of elders, men are limited through no fault of their own, because they can only act on what they see, they can't help that. They might be applying the scripture quite correctly, but it's contingent on the person they are considering appointing to actually qualify. But, and we are going round in circles, the elders can only see what is apparent. Therefore logically, if they really do not meet these qualifications, because they have deceptively hidden some pertinent details, or if it was assumed that past sins will no longer occur but they do, then holy spirit was not involved in the appointing, regardless whether men have appointed the person or not. So there are three scenarios, correct appointment,  erroneous appointment, and appointment that is later withdrawn. In the second scenario, the erroneous appointment,  it can happen that a prospective candidate, who is married, is very clever at hiding the fact that he has a lover on the side. Outwardly, he meets all the requirements, and he is appointed an elder. No holy spirit involved there, obviously. Then in the third case, there is the candidate who really meets all the requirements, he is appointed, and it can be said that holy spirit was involved. However, later, that same man acquires a lover on the side, and keeps it well hidden. It is then obvious that he no longer meets the requirements, and holy spirit is no longer involved.
The third scenario illustrates that holy spirit, once given, doesn't mean it can't be withdrawn. Think Judas Iscariot. Similarly, once someone is appointed by holy spirit, doesn't mean that appointment can't be made obsolete, removed. So how would we know? We may not know. But the scriptures say "that which is carefully hidden WILL be exposed".
I don't see how I've done that. What are they claiming that's false? Just because Greenlees was apparently not appointed by holy spirit, but by men, doesn't mean the same thing applies to all of them.
JWS believe that the head of the congregation is Jesus, and that he knows who is who and what is going on, even though men may not know. So we trust that whatever corrections are needed, they will happen.
You mean ex-JWs emailing Angus Stewart?
I am not talking about a theoretical exercise, I am talking about an actual case. I read the whole transcript (all several hundred pages of it).
I can’t comment on cases unless I am able to read all the court transcripts of the case. So you telling me about “sordid details” and “cover ups” is of no real help to me. Although I am not denying that cover ups have happened.
Are you talking about victims BCG, and BCB? Because if you are, then I do not recall any attempts at covering up abuse. But I do recall there being inappropriate handling of the issue, for example for the victim to have to face her abuser.  The ARC identified areas such as that, and others, where the policies of JWS could be improved, and then made recommendations. These recommendations were taken on board and are now implemented, and are part of the JW policy on Child Protection. I am sure you have read it. Furthermore as you know, the ARC was set up in recognition of CSA problems in various institutions, not just JWS.
This sounds like a case of semantics to me. I could say that Julia Child did not direct me, but I allowed her instructions in the cook book to direct me. And if those instructions were detailed enough, then I probably turned out a good meal. However, if I started chopping the onion in quarters, instead of small pieces, as stated in the recipe, then Julia Child would not be there to personally correct me. So if my meal turned out less than perfect, then it was because I had not followed Julia’s instructions properly, regardless whether she was there in person or not. But really, this is what the Bible is. Christians try to follow it as best as they can. The idea of appointment by holy spirit is a scriptural idea and it is assumed that if one qualifies as per Timothy, then it can be said that one is working in harmony with God and his holy spirit in that appointment, therefore to put it another way: the appointment is by holy spirit. I guess you would prefer appointed in harmony with holy spirit, rather than appointed by it. But don’t think I don’t know the real reason why you are bringing all this up. Your point is that saying “appointed by”, somehow makes the rank and file imagine that this is something special, and under direct guidance of God.  But we have already established that this cannot always be the case. (But also, that does not automatically mean that it is never the case). Regardless, Paul writes Christians should be obedient to those taking the lead. This does not mean we are going to obey indiscriminately. I guess because the apostle Paul assumed that he was talking to intelligent and reasonable people, he did not see the need to insert the proviso “unless they are asking you to do something bad” .  Peter understood, when he said “we must obey God as ruler rather than man”. Which brings me to your next point:
No, first and foremost God must be obeyed. So if the GB were to ask someone to do something that is not supported in scripture, or that goes against scripture, no JW should obey.
As I said further above, you might have concluded that, but not me. 
Not only me, but most JWS see evidence of God's spirit not only in their lives, but in the way the organization operates, in spite of imperfections. Sorry to disappoint you. 

The last few comments have referenced “the end,” but they have missed the most obvious sign.
As you know, Jehovah’s Witnesses take a few years to work their way through the Bible via assigned chapters. This week we consider Revelation chapters 1-3. 
The end will come in about two months. It would be too inconvenient to make them start all over again from the Genesis beginning.
Call THAT not bringing in anything useful?

On the contrary. It is the only beneficial use of space here, with a couple of caveats.