Anna

I have found in over 7000 posts that I can be rude, and belligerent, and insulting ... if the level of stupidity rises to the point where a "reasonable person" would conclude that it is a defense to previous insults and/or accusations, not based in fact.
And that insulting ideas and philosophies with provable facts is quite OK, here.
Ad Hominem attacks are never acceptable without a solid basis to do so.
...... and never invoke "Godwin's Law", unless you fully understand what it says and does not say.

You are allowed to respond to criticism any way you want as long as you are civil and not rude.

I agree. Do you know the United States cannot be sued unless it allows it to be sued? The USA has immunity no different from that of individual States.
If they didn’t have that immunity, imagine the millions of lawsuits against it for child abuse would be filed. It would mean the USA had failed its citizens for allowing hundreds of thousands of child abusers in their country.
I figure if a country is allowing civil lawsuits across the board for institutions, they should be included. Those advocating for child protection should then voice their advocacy to be fair. Meaning if institutions are at fault for allowing child abuse through no real fault of their own, then governments and their citizens should bear the same responsibility. This would include those advocates that have done nothing wrong but their government has.
If the argument is to have substance, then it should be fair and above board.

You do it by putting the turntable in neutral and spinning it backwards with your finger. When you do, you hear repeatedly and very distinctly, “Turn me on, dead man.” (Revolution #9) When you play “Strawberry Fields Forever” forward, you hear at the very end, “I buried Paul.”
The rumor was that Paul, of the wildly popular only-game-in-town Beatles, had died some years ago and that the other three had covered it up, hiring a look-alike to take his place. This look-alike was referred to as “Billy Shears” from the Sgt Pepper’s album, who worried “what would you do if I sang out of tune?” but took solace that he would “get by with a little help from his friends.”
The Beatles cross the street “Abbey Road” in single file on the cover of the album of that name. John leads, dressed in white—he is the preacher. Ringo is next, in black—he is the undertaker. Paul is third—barefoot as a corpse would be, cigarette in hand, though he supposedly quit them years ago—he is the dead man. George is fourth, dressed in workman’s clothes—he is the ditchdigger. The license plate of the VW just over the curb is “28 IF,” the age Paul would be IF he was still alive. The first song of that album, “Come together,” revolves around sounds that could best be characterized as a shovel piling on dirt, as in a burial. References abound to going on without Paul: “He says, ‘one and one and one is three,’ Hold on to his armchair, you can feel his disease.”
The Sgt Pepper’s album cover features the old Beatles looking down upon the new Beatles, renamed Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band. The scene is of a burial—“Beatles” is spelled out in floral arrangement, and a host of other famous, though dead, people—Albert Einstein, Mae West, Edgar Allen Poe, about thirty in all—join the old Beatles in looking on.
This is just for starters. Supposedly, the three surviving Beatles had planned this for years, hiding clues in their records.
Why do I know this in such detail? I was a college student at the time. When this story broke, campus life came to a standstill. Kids were glued to campus radio, which cancelled all other programming to run with this 24/7. There was radio tie-in with major schools, which were also at standstills as regards academics activity. Students would call in with the latest theorizing. There were many in our school that cut classes so as not to miss a word. My roommate urged me (unsuccessfully) to install a reverse gear in my record player so as to play all Beatles songs backwards in search of additional clues. Had it been feasible, I probably would have done it.
Outlandish rumors were bandied about and accepted as gospel. The feed station—from UCLA, perhaps—featured unending call-ins and interviews of the latest “research.” On the back  cover of the Sgt Pepper’s album, one of the four—Paul’s replacement, I think—is conducting the band. Superimposed on the cover are the lyrics to the songs within. By this means, “Paul’s” finger points to the words from “She’s Leaving Home,” “Wednesday morning at five o’clock.” If you called a certain number—also listed in the album somewhere, I think—you found yourself connected to hell. I think that if you pressed the matter, you risked losing your soul. Don’t ever let anyone tell you that they are “young adults” in college. They are big children, reveling in the [then] newfound freedoms of drugs and sex, free of parental supervision,  hopefully on their way to becoming adults.
This Beatles’ plot was  the dominating concern of students then and it lasted for days on end.
The weekend came. Maybe it was even some holiday. I went home, about 250 miles away. NOBODY KNEW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS! On campus, NOBODY KNEW ANYTHING ELSE! I couldn’t believe how oblivious the out-of-touch farts were to the greatest story of our time! Finally, after a day or two, there was a brief snippet at the end of the “World News Report” and it was in the form of a scolding. Walter Chronkite or his like ran a line of two, briefly acknowledged that the Beatles—those precocious kids—were having a laugh on the world, but what a sick laugh it was.
I wrote this up long ago. It does me good to recall it. Sure—I have nothing else to do with my time:
https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2010/01/hurry-gwen-theyre-killing-people.html

There's trust as in the type of trust you have in a trusted friend, and blind trust in someone who turned out not to be what you thought they were. I don't think of the organization as the religion we trust in. True religion is helping people who we can best help - materially, spiritually, emotionally -- with the proper unselfish, loving motivation, and therefore without spot from this world. An organization, i.e., a publishing house, researchers, coordinators, a legal department, etc., are just tools that a group of sincere Christians might be expected to utilize for a more efficient method of getting the word out in the midst of a complex world. It's not something to trust blindly as if it is Christianity, or even as if it represents true Christianity.
(These are my opinions, of course.)
I think that a lot of persons get baptized as Witnesses with a kind of naive view that the organization is more than it really is. This might even be true of new GB members who are asked to join that particular committee of elders. Perhaps they are surprised at the difference between reality and expectation. But I think they are better prepared, since they have already worked at various levels of the organization.
I didn't mean to call myself JW Insider here. I intended to use "The Bible's Advocate" but when I joined someone was making a claim that was easily clarified by someone who had worked directly with members of the GB before. I had worked with members of the GB from 1976 to 1982. I worked directly for a member of the GB from about 1979 to 1982. I planned to tell some of the stories from that period, and therefore called myself "JW Insider" and allowed it to stick, in spite of some unintended implications.
But I mention this because if a person can work with (and around) some of these same persons for a few years, then they are already prepared for an experience that is quite different from the expectation of the average Witness. They have seen them in a bad mood, they have seen them curse and yell, they have seen them make mistakes, they have seen their prejudices, seen them connive, possibly even be dishonest. I have seen all these things among a couple of them, but I'm obviously talking about exceptions to their usual conduct and demeanor. And for MOST of the members that I knew, I never saw any of these things, they always came across as perfect "saints." But I would not have been surprised to learn of a different side, because of what I had seen in a very few others, even if I only saw it rarely.
I also had an advantage of an uncle who was a circuit overseer, and a grandmother and grandfather who seemed to know all the "big shots" from headquarters. (My great grandfather was a Chicago Bible Student who traveled with Russell and spoke at conventions with him.) But most of these relatives were apt to say things like, "Jehovah puts half of us here to test the other half," when referring to some of these same persons. Before going to Bethel, I heard a Circuit Overseer evoke laughter from another by asking, "Can you imagine how the Apostle Paul would have blown up if anyone told him he had to keep all these numbers [records] on everyone?"
So, I probably come at some of these human imperfections from a different perspective than most. I'm hardly surprised at anything. My grandparents who knew Rutherford thought he was sleazy. My table head at Bethel had a personal "hatred" of him. But Russell himself was apparently dishonest, too, sometimes. Both Russell and Rutherford weren't defined by these errors, because their greater goal was to spread the word about the Kingdom hope amidst expectations of the imminent end. And now, we've gotten rid of most of that chronology rhetoric and spend more time highlighting the positive, life-changing aspects of the message. And I see a great value, like a pearl, in the overall set of teachings we stand for. And I do tend to fall back on how the Israelites had asked for a king and got a range of kings, from evil to good, but none perfect, of course.
I am out for the rest of the day without much access, so I won't spend much time revisiting issues already covered. And I know the answers won't be satisfactory anyway. I should also say that I hope you don't lose your spirituality. Many exJWs do. Also, I wouldn't make too much of the fact that I used the word "apostate" when referring to the challenges you offer. I don't think of you as apostate as long as you are in a stage, as you describe, of anger and confusion. That could be understandable. I would hope you could see that there is a beautiful baby in that bathwater before you throw it all out.

Thank you for your expressions. I wanted to respond a little sooner than this but I ran out of time. Here are my thoughts on some of the things you mention. Just my two cents 😀.
I used to think the same way, but just because it says update, doesn't mean the actual content is changed (like different wording of a scripture for example) but it is more to do with technical updates to make things compatible with constant changes and updates in the way  various operating systems work, similar to windows system, Firefox etc.  It is normal for any websites to do that. If there are any doctrinal or organizational changes, then we are usually made aware of them in a WT study.
That would be a cool thing for those who like to dig deep.I noticed sometimes there are references to further reading, but not often.
I don't know, but perhaps because everything is being simplified, sort of like we've already researched all the subjects, so no need to keep bringing it up, time to move on kind of thing.  The publications with all those references are still available for anyone to read and research though.
I understand some of the things you are saying regarding this subject. I especially agree with your last two points. I suppose striving for hours is an incentive some people need. It would be great if the friends would put in pioneer hours without actually pioneering. But we mustn't forget that if a publisher signs up to be a pioneer, then they know what they are doing, they know they are committing themselves to a certain promise. The problem is why are they doing it. Is it because they need an incentive,  or is it because they like the title?
If I am not mistaken, there is no specific regulation which says you can't do those things you have described. For example when going door to door in a remote village in one Easter European country, the brothers do not wear a tie because the locals would get confused and suspicious, and not be open to discussions.  It is always a good idea to adapt our preaching according to local circumstances. We should never be stuck on just one way. With the counting...I read somewhere that JWs keep the best and most reliable records. If there is any kind of worldly survey carried out, for example with regard to the numbers (members) of a particular religion, they always seem to trust the JW numbers the most.
Haha, that would be funny. I don't think that will ever happen because it's too judgmental. But I understand your point!
 
I think it's obvious that the reaction to a new Bible would be very positive. Therefor I don't think this was so much a request for information, but a confirmation of a "work well done". However the questions you propose, are on a different level and would require an awful lot of work sifting through the submissions. But I agree. I think JW Insider mentioned something about a "suggestion box" option on our website. Or even a "ask questions" box. I think both would be a very good idea. At the moment as you say, it is left up to the CO's to give some kind of report. But the thing is, many friends do not like to bring an issue up which they think might be viewed controversial or even rebellious. I know I don't. But if these comments could be made anonymously on the website, then I am sure the organization would get a much better idea of the state of the congregations and friends. The problem is some kind of mechanism would have to be put into effect that prevented just ANYONE from commenting. That way people who were merely trouble makers (opposers etc.) wouldn't clog up the whole site, or give the wrong impression that the friends were having these problems, whereas it would really be ex- witnesses.
To be honest we don't have that problem in my congregation. There are many excellent auxiliary answers given. I suppose it depends on the congregation. Although we are all united, each congregation has its unique style/character. That's why you get some people "shopping" for a congregation they like, if they are not happy in the one they are at. 
I agree completely! I always go to sleep when they do that. I don't see the point.
I think that this is already going on to a certain point isn't it?
Also I know that things have been simplified where there are no longer room cleaners, each person must clean their own room for example.
I think something like that exists in the USA.  https://jjha.community/about/
But I don't think it is organized by the society.
Yes. Don't you just love it when an older single brother with no children tries to give you counsel about yours?
Oh yes, the notorious beard issue! 🐵 A few weeks ago, in my mum's congregation, a young ministerial servant decided to grow a beard. My mum told me that the elders told him that if he wants to keep on carrying the mikes he will have to shave the beard off.  This is in a country where beards are socially acceptable, and in some congregations there are elders with beards. Not many, but I know one personally. I told my mum that usually it is up to the body of elders to decide because they should know the territory well and know whether it would offend an outsider or not.  She then told me that 1. my dad (an elder) wasn't told about it, and 2. there is absolutely no aversion to beards by the public as many people wear one. I asked her if this young brother was a "rebellious" type. She said not at all. Logically, he must have been qualified in order to become a min. servant. So as you can see, there is already a problem because certain elders have taken it upon themselves to decide on the matter without consulting the whole body. Who knows, these elders may not like beards, so it becomes personal, rather than theocratic. They have the Co's visit right now, so she told me she would let me know what happens. The other thing is, which I find odd, is that apparently if he shaves it off, they won't address the issue (!) I feel like telling the brother, don't shave it off, because this issue needs to be handled properly first. And once it's handled properly, and they still ask him to shave it off, then that is a different matter.
As regards the photos, yes, I agree, on the one hand we are told in the WT that beards are ok in some cultures, but then on the other hand shaving a beard off is used as an example of spiritual progress. It confuses people.
(P.S. Quite a large number of elders I know grow a beard while on vacation, and don't mind posting pictures on Instagram or FB, so they are not hiding it, but then once they go back to the meeting they shave it off).
I will comment on the doctrinal part  next time. (when I have more time).

Would dying by going to war for your country be suicide?

I think you've been missing the point all those years ago when you started studying with JWs.

First of all, before I begin answering, I wanted to say that I have long expected that any JWs who go online to defend their views publicly will see more and more of what is beginning to happen here. The specific challenges coming from you (@4Jah2me), @Witness and @Srecko Sostar (and a few others) have lately seemed like a stronger "anti-JW onslaught" than this forum has seen before. Personally, I think it's a good thing that more and more JWs are prepared for just this type of barrage. At the moment they are all coming apparently from ex-JWs that we would call "apostates." But the Internet easily allows anyone to become capable of bringing these exact same challenges to us. So they are not specifically "apostate" challenges.
Of course, I've brought up some of these same challenges myself, because I think we all need to think about them before we answer with our typical, traditional responses. I believe that we need some doctrinal adjustments, and therefore, I'm not exactly defending the GB position against your challenges. I like it that @TrueTomHarley is standing in for me, but he is probably also concerned that, on my own, I'll end up throwing the GB under the bus.
I'm not talking about some of the minor throw-away complaints (like 'Bible Studies are really just Book Studies' and we're trying to replace the Bible with these books, etc.). The GB challenge is probably the most difficult to address in a way that can rationalize some recent inconsistent statements, the play between spirit-directed and inspired, modern "apostolic" precedent, the GB's request to be trusted while admitting that some of the teachings and processes are bound to be mistaken now and then. And we have the challenge of when and whether conscience comes into play, whether legalism has gone too far, and truly difficult doctrines to defend such as overlapping groups within "this generation" and overlapping blood components with blood fractions, etc.
Yes. The GB dictate to the congregations and, unless the dictate is seen as unconscionable or unscriptural, the members of the congregations are expected to obey. Naturally, this can go too far, but the reason for this should be easy to understand.
For the following situation, for now, you might just want to insert your own view of what a proper Christian is, if you completely reject the possibility that a JW can be a true Christian:
Hypothetically, a Christian may find himself/herself in a place with no fellow Christians to associate with, and all efforts to make disciples might fall on unproductive soil. But let's say that a Christian in this situation is happy and zealous for what he has learned from the Scriptures, has followed Jesus' command to make disciples so that others will know what Jesus taught, and is successful in converting 40 persons to Christianity and they all, because of their Bible reading, want to establish a community congregation to try to follow closely their view of the 1st century congregations as closely as possible. 
As everyone has unique abilities, and was converted at various times, the congregation will naturally have members of various levels of experience, and they likely want an orderly process for meeting and teaching and participating in the activities that they agree are important and consistent with their beliefs. Not everyone will want the same meeting times, not everyone will be teaching from the platform, or leading or suggesting the activities. There will be compromises as to meeting times, topics discussed, the depth or simplicity of those topics, how much to spend on activities, building maintenance, color of carpets, etc.
Most will appreciate that those who qualify as "elders" Biblically, will also be capable of making those decisions in a way that benefits the majority in the congregation, even though it's not perfect, and no decision will be right for all members. Some of the decisions will be compromises, some will be about process, and very mundane things.
But some will be about teachings, and it's likely that new things will be learned, and questions will be asked that make persons rethink something that might have been taught a different way than before.
I hope you can see that, even with JWs out of the picture, you could probably accept this entire situation as a possible, and even normal, Christian congregation. So now we take it a step further:
The excitement and joy in this congregation of 40 soon becomes 80 and 160 as more and more share in Jesus' command to make disciples. They are now spread over 100's of miles, and need 4 congregations. This turns to 400 miles and 20 congregations. We would expect that some of the qualified elders would be chosen and invited to give talks and instruction in some of the other congregations? News of congregation events and experiences in one congregation might want to be shared to build up those in another congregation? Perhaps a newsletter is in order that's shared among all 20 congregations? Perhaps even some of the more successful methods of making disciples could be shared? And these 20 congregations might find it nice to have a chance to gather together will all 20 congregations of those related to them in the faith on special occasions.
It will soon be useful, perhaps necessary, to have certain members of these congregations specifically involved in (assigned to) tasks related to coordination, writing, topics for sermons, administration duties, and some assurances that their doctrines are being "double-checked" against the Bible so that one congregation is not teaching something that another congregation would find unbiblical or even offensive. The doctrine checking would no doubt go to those elders most experienced at teaching and preaching and who had experience visiting multiple congregations.
I believe that most of these ideas would not be offensive to you, when you think of how naturally they occur in various denominations all around the world.
With JWs, a large body of doctrine has been built up, and remodeled, over the last 135 years or so. Those elders who act as elders of multiple congregations instead of just one local congregation will see themselves as the "guardians of doctrine." (The term, as used by Brother Jackson, sounds too much like a protector of traditional doctrines, but I think he truly meant it as guarding the doctrines so that they remain consistent with the Biblical "constitution" even when amendments are necessary.)
What I'm saying is that it is quite natural that we have a GB function. And I don't think it starts with how much they think of themselves, but the very high regard they have for the unique value of the doctrines in their care that makes them accept that they are handling a very special function. So they have looked for a Biblical way to highlight that value and ended up creating a doctrine (in 2012) about the GB being the same as the FDS, not even including the "Helpers." It's based on the one parable that highlights the way spiritual food is distributed to the entire congregation. (It appears they also considered using the parable of the loaves and fishes, but this one has too many participants in the distribution.) To me this is a doctrine that will likely need to be adjusted back to what it was from about 1928 to 2011, where the few in charge of writing and publishing doctrines only spoke of themselves as "representing" the rest of the FDS.
Their function would be the same, however, with or without their current explanation of the FDS parable. But that doctrine itself has caused some problems in that it tends to highlight the importance of 8 persons when the entire focus should be on the overall value of the unique set of doctrines. I don't think any of us should have a problem, however, with the idea that a small group of elders who are seen as "faithful and discreet slaves" would perform many of the same functions as the Governing Body are now forming.
They are elders, and they deserve respect. Most JWs think the GB are the equivalent of the FDS, so this is not a problem anyway. But I'm sure there are many who have already put this idea to the test, and it makes sense to them. Many others have put this idea to the test and they realize, as I said above, that it could be a doctrinal mistake, but would have no great effect one way or another if the doctrine were changes. (In fact, I have found long-time Witnesses who thought this had been the doctrine for nearly 50 years, since the GB arrangement.)
Also, those of us who have remained JWs, even after questioning that particular doctrine, do so because we believe the majority of the basic doctrines being "distributed" are correct, otherwise there are other denominations to look into. My own criteria, based on the Bible, immediately knocks out just about all the other denominational options at a glance.
I don't see the same huge difference. Paul spoke of the removal of the gifts of inspiration. So even if they were inspired, we should not expect inspiration to take the same form today. Also, the GB model themselves, not directly on the apostles, but on the Council of elders at Jerusalem, which was best known for correcting a big mistake that came right out of their own congregation, from under their noses, which Peter and James (not an apostle) had even hypocritically participated in. Also, even the apostles were not "inspired" at all times. 
No one goes to the door with the overlapping generations message. Our message is that the time for this wicked system is short, and that the Kingdom offers the perfect solution, so lift your heads up and rejoice, and if you really want to do some good, join us in spreading that same message to others. 
Haven't seen that invoked for a while. It gets drummed up by exJWs from some old 1950s Watchtower. It's been used again since 2000, but it's in the context of preparation for persecution as a possible way to be "cautious as serpents yet innocent as doves." The basic idea is not to give more information than a person is entitled to, especially so as not to put our brothers and sisters unnecessarily in harm's way.
Yes. I know the quote, and I've heard others like it. It's an imperfect statement made by an imperfect man. But the motivation from context is the idea (perhaps patronizing) that most of us are like children who need a lot of reassurance. A parent wants a child to show trust even though the parent knows that he or she will make mistakes. But because the motive of most parents is loving, those mistakes will rarely outweigh the value of a child's trust in the parent. A good shepherd will show love to the flock under their care as if they are like his "children." I'm not offended because I think the phrase was properly motivated. 

That is an excellent counter-question for the troublemaker and his two cheerleaders.
From the standpoint of the soldier’s countrymen, no—it is not suicide. However, from the standpoint of the other 99% of the world’s population, it may not be suicide, but it is stark raving crazy misguided, putting trust in a delusion of self-interested superiority, and his death is an absolute waste, rewarded only with a monument from his fellow delusionites. 
What reward does God have in store for those who keep his laws even under duress?

That’s a little too flippant. I’ll walk it back. @Srecko Sostar @4Jah2me
Even @Witness
“To he who has been given much, much will be expected” is more like it, and the GB operates, in my view, in harmony with that.
Sometimes in pushing back, one overreacts. The idea that I was trying to convey is that humans are not perfect, even those with responsibility, and Jehovah’s Witnesses accept that as a given.

She puts a bug in the ear of the chemistry teacher to tell them it is okay.

In school, I studied math. But I refused a textbook because that was not really math, but was a book about math. 
I also studied science. But I refused a textbook because that was not really science, but was a book about science. 
What! Those frauds were trying to indoctrinate me!  But I was too clever for them.
Well....you do have me there.

Thank you for this reply. I showed it to a bible student. 
To add a thought:  by this time,  most apostles had died and congregations had to learn to be more mature and function on their own. Many of the issues encountered by early congregations such as adherance to the law were resolved by the GB in Jerusalem.  Now they had to keep out apostacy (which was already present especially the Greek philosophy / influence in Greek congregations. Worship of individuals, or following has always been an inclination of some.....and John warns about this.
Yet, individual responsibility - as you brought out- is prime.

This might be true, but I think that you have had some trouble pinning this "GB worshiper" label on people here. You probably see a lot of potentially contradictory ideas that seem like cognitive dissonance to you. But this might just be a point that many thousands of JWs have reached, while trying to make sense of the extent of human imperfection in trying to put a human structure around good spiritual concepts.
We often look back at Israel's past, or even note the imperfect leadership of the early Christian congregation. Do we expect to be any better? Jesus said of the Pharisees and other religious leaders in his day that they had put themselves in the seat of Moses, and some ended up making "disciples" who were worse off than before they started. Yet what did Jesus also say about some of the same leaders?
Matthew 23:2-4 says: 2“The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3So practice and observe everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4They tie up heavy, burdensome loads and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.…
We can still follow, even "obey" religious leaders, even when we know they are very imperfect.
Any organized religious structure will end up being led by men who are imperfect, and therefore by men that we can never trust 100 percent, no matter how well they think they are doing. This is really what we must always expect: "Put not your trust in earthling man (even princes/nobles) in whom no salvation belongs" "Let God be found true though every man be found a liar."
Still, Christianity requires a human, social structure because it is a "brotherhood." It's a place where we can comfort others and be comforted, encourage others and be encouraged, feed and clothe and visit others, and be fed, clothed, and visited as needed. But those who would be "leaders" at the very top of any organization will always tend to grasp at reasons to explain and hold on to their authority. They may not well understand this authoritative position they are engaged in, and human nature will lead them to continue in the type of behavior that works best for persons in authority. They will tend to look for what they believe is the best solution to any religious questions (doctrine, process), and then make a "command" out of it. It's the reason that we don't see a lot of public admission that a question has them vexed. Instead, in order for authority to work (for most of us) they must make a private decision about what solution works the best (least number of unexplained discrepencies) and then teach this "solution" (often conjecture) as if it is gospel. 
(1 Peter 4:11) . . .If anyone speaks, [let him speak] as it were [the] sacred pronouncements of God;. . .
(NIV) If anyone speaks, they should do so as one who speaks the very words of God. If anyone serves, they should do so with the strength God provides, so.
Some of these "oracles" will attract sycophantic followers. That's also human nature. Russell acted as one of those "oracles" and so did Rutherford and Fred Franz, and David Splane to an extent. Just like in the first century congregation, people followed Paul, or Apollos, or Peter, who were all fine ministers. Some of us want to think of these modern day examples as being apostle-like. Some might even be apostle-like, but it's up to us to never just accept them this way, but to put all new teachings to the test.
(Revelation 2:2, 14) . . .and that you put to the test those who say they are apostles, but they are not, and you found them to be liars.. . . you have there those adhering to the teaching of Baʹlaam, . . . you also have those adhering to the teaching of the sect of Nic·o·laʹus. . . . you tolerate that woman Jezʹe·bel . . . I say to the rest of you who are in Thy·a·tiʹra, all those who do not follow this teaching . . .
Notice that Jesus' instructions to the 7 congregations was never about waiting for a governing body of apostle-like persons to tell them what was true and false teaching. It was the congregation's own responsibility to put to the test anyone who wanted them to be accepted as apostle-like. They were responsible to compare it to the true original apostolic source (for us, the Biblical source of teaching)  "Therefore, continue mindful of how you have received and how you heard, and go on keeping it. . ." (Revelation 3:3)
As an aside, I would also say that the congregation is a place to inculcate the existing Bible teachings, not a place to find "new" teachings. It's a place to keep our spirits up, and keep our love alive, so that we can endure. Jesus addresses those in the congregations, but ends this section by making a point about how they all would stand to be judged as individuals.
(Revelation 3:19-22) 19 “‘All those for whom I have affection, I reprove and discipline. So be zealous and repent. 20 Look! I am standing at the door and knocking. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come into his house and take the evening meal with him and he with me. 21 To the one who conquers I will grant to sit down with me on my throne, just as I conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne. 22 Let the one who has an ear hear what the spirit says to the congregations.’”
We're never going to get away from leaders who are imperfect and who will, by human nature, tend to ask us to believe and act only in a certain way. This is useful for some, especially at first. But we should also mature:
(Hebrews 5:14) 14 But solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their powers of discernment trained to distinguish both right and wrong.

Yes, it is a man made rule, but based at least in part on scriptural principles. Also these are man-made rules coming from those who should be in a better position to see a wider set of statistics and experiences as they get reports from all around the world. Elders are sometimes called "epi-skopos" in Greek, meaning overseers. When we consider those who literally watch over a flock closely, we might expect them to count the number of sick, the number who die, the number eaten, the number of sheep in various categories: mottled, speckled, young, old, male, female. They also know the dangers of taking them through "Wolf Ravine" or making them wade through "Poison Water River." Similarly, if the elders working at headquarters got 100 reports of divorces right after holding an international convention in Las Vegas or Amsterdam, but no reports of divorces every time they held the same size international conventions in Helsinki or Reykjavík, I think it would be a wise man-made rule not to schedule international conventions in Las Vegas or Amsterdam. Not all traditions make the word of God void.
The WTS had a program to pay for Law School for selected individuals already working full time at Bethel or other full time service who showed promise or aptitude for such. This program was dropped, and you can be sure that there those at HQ who were counting the cost, much like those shepherd counting the survivors of "Wolf Ravine." They reverted back the previous system of using volunteers who had finished Law School before becoming Witnesses.
Age 17.
But all scores that count are measured at the end of Junior year, not Senior year of American High School. Therefore it requires a conscious choice to pick the maximum number of advanced placement classes which could result in the best choices and scholarships and would therefore be a path chosen by age 15 or 16 at the latest.
Local papers print up the bio given by a Guidance Counselor office of each high school reporting on the scores of their "Valedictorians" and those who are accepted by certain colleges.
Asked and answered in a prior post.
So far, I believe well more than half of the GB says.   
I believe that since WE, if we hope to be noble-minded individuals, are responsible to search the Scriptures and see whether these things are so, then this must be WE not only THEM. And there are many ways to tell someone about the Kingdom hope, the paradise, the resurrection, God's purpose, God's government, and why it's got to be a sight better than what we are putting up with now. Sometimes the CLAM workbook is spot on, sometimes it doesn't fit my style at all.

Are you kidding? 😀
The real JW forum is in...ahem.... the closed club

Br. Jackson quote:
"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".
Whether that view is delusional is subjective 😀
That second video is hilarious @James Thomas Rook Jr.

Well, just shows you can't make people do what you want them to do, people will always do what THEY want to do in the end. The only exception is if they are drugged. It is implied by some on here that the GB controls everyone. Evidently not true 😀

This could be true for some. No one was telling me I couldn't go to college, though. Their concern was that it would set a poor example to appoint an elder and then the congregation simultaneously found out I was going to college. But if a congregation needs elders, there is almost no difference in the amount and types of assignments given to ministerial servants. Even as an MS, I had been giving 5 different public talks (3 from the outlines), and was still being invited to give some of them in different congregations every few weeks. I believe I had either the 15 minute "Instruction Talk" or a 15 minute part on the Service Meeting about 3 times a month. And I was not told I had to pioneer, while attending college, but had offered this idea as a way to show that college was a not a full time priority in my life. No one held me to it anyway, as I only could manage pioneering for two more years. In my third year I was offered a great job and started it before graduation.
But still, it's always good counsel to give to anyone who is thinking about college, that they think about their priorities before making a decision. I've given the same counsel to others, but I make sure they still know it's their own choice, and we wish them all the best outcomes.
But then 30 years later, the issue comes up again with my own children. The need to step down as an elder if your kids go to college is not enforced consistently, at least in the United States. When children get large scholarships it can make it more sensible economically to go to a four year college, but it still gives the impression that you are putting economic and material interests ahead of the urgency necessary based on the shortness of the time to the end. The issue of setting a good example is not just for the congregation, but also the fact that you might not even have your own family in "subjection." Of course, kids go to college when they are 18, and I don't believe in "subjection" at this point in their lives. I believe in learning from my kids, and letting myself be subjected to hearing about what they are learning. 
I am not concerned too much about the Society's position on higher education. At this point, the economic benefits are too often a trap due to the high cost and doubtful employment outcomes. And although I'm sure I'd be welcomed to return as an elder, I am happy with all the things that can be done without the title. Also, you might know that I have a lot of difficulty navigating platform assignments that promote shunning, 1914, the sign, the generation, the "presence," and few other things on which we might well be right, but are too dogmatic about. I'm happy to wait until the pendulum swings in the direction of less dogma. Titles are not important.

But I don't think that's what the WT has in mind. When the WT talks about higher education it means getting a bachelors, masters or doctorate degrees (in the USA). An associate degree is only for 2 years and is more akin to a trade certificate, it seems neither are viewed as "higher education" by the WT.

It’s true. If I am asked a question in service, like, “Who is God?” I will say, “Hold that thought while I check in with my masters.” I dial them on my cell phone.
I used to dial them on my smart phone, but they took it. They said I shouldn’t go thinking myself smart. Only they are.

“Trying to fulfill.”
That hardly sounds delusional to me. Nor does it seem haughty or pretentious. 
If it is not them, who else could it be? (No Facebook pages allowed) (It is not Dilbert, either)

Of course!
We just finished Halloween!

No, my feelings are not mixed, everyone is entitled to their thoughts about something, the difference is are you going to make a lot of noise wanting to convince others of your thoughts.
I do not think Splane is deliberately lying. I think he believes what he is saying is the truth.
That's your opinion. Not mine.