Anna

Yes, I could be wrong, but it does seem like that to me. Not sure what you mean by your second question, about how many do I think there are....that need placating? 
I don't think we need placating to keep plodding on. And I think it can be dangerous to do it this way, and could back fire!

This is not a reply to anyone specifically, just some musings in response to some of the comments here.
I suppose it's not too much of an unreasonable concept to have a measure of confidence in imperfect humans, who all err and make mistakes. Without confidence in others, it would be a crazy world, even crazier than it is now and absolutely nothing would get done. Even when we have been disappointed over and over, we still check what the weatherman has to say about tomorrow's weather. I think maybe the word "complete" confidence should be omitted though when referring to any human, including the GB. Surely complete trust/confidence only belongs to God. The GB cannot ensure our salvation, only God can. (Do not put your trust in princes nor in a son of man, who cannot bring salvation Ps 146:3) We cannot question God, and quite rightly so of course. But we should be able to question a human, a prophet, or an angel for that matter. The story about the “man of the true God” in 1 Kings ch.13 highlights the seriousness of questioning (making sure) very well.  In Israelite times people needed to distinguish between a true prophet and a false one. There were plenty of false ones, and they were exposed by Jehovah. Today, we need to question in order to determine who is false and who is not.  (The term prophet that I am referring to is a spokesperson for God, not someone who predicts).  The Insight book says this in part regarding true and false prophets:  “The true prophet would speak in Jehovah’s name; the things foretold would come to pass (De 18:20-22); and his prophesying must promote true worship, being in harmony with God’s revealed word and commandments (De 13:1-4). The last requirement was probably the most vital and decisive, for an individual might hypocritically use God’s name, and by coincidence, his prediction might see fulfillment. But the true prophet was not solely or even primarily a prognosticator, as has been shown. Rather, he was an advocate of righteousness, and his message dealt primarily with moral standards and their application. He expressed God’s mind on matters. (Isa 1:10-20; Mic 6:1-12) Hence, it was not necessary to wait perhaps for years or generations to determine whether the prophet was true or false by fulfillment of a prediction. If his message contradicted God’s revealed will and standards, he was false".

So, we come to the crux of the matter. We should be able to question the prophet/spokesperson/GB, to make sure  that what he says does not conflict with "Jehovah’s righteous standards and mind on matters" as was verified by Geoffrey Jackson in his "if we gave wrong direction, then everyone who has the Bible would see that it was the wrong direction"  statement.
So unquestioning obedience and "complete" trust, in my opinion, are not the right choice of words to use in connection with the GB.
 
And this is the primary reason for the topic, not to suspiciously distrust the GB, but to remind ourselves, by discussing the topic in depth, that there are boundaries and stipulations that have to be met before we can have confidence in, and/or obey any single expression made by the prophet/GB/FDS. And these boundaries and stipulations are set by Jehovah himself.
Personally, I find nothing wrong with speculation, as long as it is not presented as fact.

Going beyond what is written. This happens when an interpretation is applied to any seemingly ambiguous scripture. Where to find the balance? Since no one can interpret scripture without the possibility of making an error, how about only sticking to what is completely clear, (besides not conflicting with other scriptures), and admitting anything else is speculation.  That would be a good start. I have no qualms telling anyone who wants to know my opinion on the revised understanding of the “generation”,  that I believe it is speculative, and may or may not be true,  and that we will know the true answer probably not until after Armageddon......
In saying all this, I do not think that the reasons for distrusting the GB that have been posted here by some are valid enough reasons. I think completely distrusting the GB is as unreasonable as completely trusting them.
 

Yes, I could be wrong, but it does seem like that to me. Not sure what you mean by your second question, about how many do I think there are....that need placating? 
I don't think we need placating to keep plodding on. And I think it can be dangerous to do it this way, and could back fire!

WOW!
 
 
 
.... now what?
 
Finding Nemo - Now what_!.mp4

(Matthew 24:34) . . .Truly I say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things happen.
(Matthew 24:1-3) . . .Now as Jesus was departing from the temple, his disciples approached to show him the buildings of the temple. 2 In response he said to them: “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, by no means will a stone be left here upon a stone and not be thrown down.” 3 While he was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples approached him privately, saying: “Tell us, when will these things be. . .
(Mark 13:1-4) . . .As he was going out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him: “Teacher, see! what wonderful stones and buildings!” 2 However, Jesus said to him: “Do you see these great buildings? By no means will a stone be left here upon a stone and not be thrown down.” 3 As he was sitting on the Mount of Olives with the temple in view, Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked him privately: 4 “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are to come to a conclusion?”
(Luke 21:5-7) 5 Later, when some were speaking about the temple, how it was adorned with fine stones and dedicated things, 6 he said: “As for these things that you now see, the days will come when not a stone will be left upon a stone and not be thrown down.” 7 Then they questioned him, saying: “Teacher, when will these things actually be, and what will be the sign when these things are to occur?”
 
 
 

Of course! Everything I write here is opinion. Even the part you evidently agreed with. 😊

Didn’t the apostle Paul have similar problems? Yet he said “So I take pleasure in weaknesses, in insults, in times of need, in persecutions and difficulties, for Christ. For when I am weak, then I am powerful.” (2 Corinthians 2:12) Why? Because ….. “ the power beyond what is normal may be God’s and not from us” (2 Corinthians 4:7)  The issue of child abuse is horrendous, but if we are to believe God, then even the consequences of that can be overcome with His help. We know that whatever happened to us, could have happened anywhere, and that all those who committed these horrendous crimes will eventually be punished.

I have not had that experience, I mean someone threatening to destroy my family if I do not believe their "fantasies". And yes, I understand what you are talking about. No need to explain

Yes, I thought so from what you've said. The truth is I've not been keeping up, especially since this thread got re-visited and exploded with comments. I will have to go back when I get a bit more time. In the mean time I will read your (for you) concise comment 😅

I suppose there is no need to, unless this understanding of ours became so important to us that we couldn't keep ourselves from acting.
Which brings me to this quote of yours:
I would think that it's an important thing, that direction never truly conflicts with God.  I agree with you about absolute truth, something is either black or white, however, what about this: (one of JTR's favorite images)

 
Perspective has a profound effect in how we see things. When there is a change, I prefer to see it as an "update" brought on by new perspective. I am sure you will agree there is nothing wrong with updates? After all, without "updates" we would still be using a cell phone the size of a brick.
So in summary, I think the most important thing is not the "change" but making sure the "change" is not in conflict with any core principles and "truths" (the cylinder) about God.
 

I suppose there is no need to, unless this understanding of ours became so important to us that we couldn't keep ourselves from acting.
Which brings me to this quote of yours:
I would think that it's an important thing, that direction never truly conflicts with God.  I agree with you about absolute truth, something is either black or white, however, what about this: (one of JTR's favorite images)

 
Perspective has a profound effect in how we see things. When there is a change, I prefer to see it as an "update" brought on by new perspective. I am sure you will agree there is nothing wrong with updates? After all, without "updates" we would still be using a cell phone the size of a brick.
So in summary, I think the most important thing is not the "change" but making sure the "change" is not in conflict with any core principles and "truths" (the cylinder) about God.
 

Didn’t the apostle Paul have similar problems? Yet he said “So I take pleasure in weaknesses, in insults, in times of need, in persecutions and difficulties, for Christ. For when I am weak, then I am powerful.” (2 Corinthians 2:12) Why? Because ….. “ the power beyond what is normal may be God’s and not from us” (2 Corinthians 4:7)  The issue of child abuse is horrendous, but if we are to believe God, then even the consequences of that can be overcome with His help. We know that whatever happened to us, could have happened anywhere, and that all those who committed these horrendous crimes will eventually be punished.

I have not had that experience, I mean someone threatening to destroy my family if I do not believe their "fantasies". And yes, I understand what you are talking about. No need to explain

What name does the WT use for their baptisms?

I suppose there is no need to, unless this understanding of ours became so important to us that we couldn't keep ourselves from acting.
Which brings me to this quote of yours:
I would think that it's an important thing, that direction never truly conflicts with God.  I agree with you about absolute truth, something is either black or white, however, what about this: (one of JTR's favorite images)

 
Perspective has a profound effect in how we see things. When there is a change, I prefer to see it as an "update" brought on by new perspective. I am sure you will agree there is nothing wrong with updates? After all, without "updates" we would still be using a cell phone the size of a brick.
So in summary, I think the most important thing is not the "change" but making sure the "change" is not in conflict with any core principles and "truths" (the cylinder) about God.
 

Is this a burning concern for you?

How can you disagree with "soon"?

We do not know what they understood. I suspect their understanding based at best on Dan.9:26 was limited at the time until it actually came to an end. Later after Pentecost some may have had more insight. It does not seem to have been that important to them as an actual time span. Just its certainty and imminence.
Nobody will know what the generation actually really is now until the fat lady sings this time round. Whatever it is, we will know soon enough. Convoluted arguments on pet theories are a waste of time. I don't care when the end actually is. I am just glad it is coming. 

I disagree .... you lack the perspective that only time and a LOT of varied experiences can give you.
Jehovah's Witnesses management does a LOT of things wrong, but they also do a lot of things right ... that no one else is doing right.  In the Corporate world, a good executive is one who gets 50% of his decisions right ... and of course WHICH 50% makes all the difference in the world.
Would you quit a job at Microsoft, because every other operating system they release bombs out, and drives everyone nutso?   I would not.
The reason God commanded us to be in subjection to the "Superior Authorities" is NOT because they are even right most of the time .... but because even the VERY WORST are better than anarchy.
The fact that we know Jehovah and Christ as they really are gives us a significant edge in having a quiet, peaceful, and prosperous life.
The TRUTH sets us free.
Humans are just nasty, selfish and no-good, so stuff ALWAYS gets lost, in translation.
I don't bitch and moan about what the Catholics, Baptists, etc., ad nauseum do or do not do, because they are a lost cause, and cannot reform.
My sincere hope is that we, do.
 
 

Sorry but I will have to disagree with you there since the question itself points to the interpretation doesn’t it?
You are right. Perhaps this might be a clue that these subjects are not as important as some might suggest. They definitely are not included in the section "elementary Bible teachings" which form the first part of the questions, but some are mentioned elsewhere in the book, such as the anointed and other sheep.  I  know for sure @James Thomas Rook Jr. only agrees with about 15% of the interpretations made by the GB and yet he remains a part of the congregation as far as I am aware.
I realize it seems like I am contradicting myself since I said that one " should have all those "own opinions on scripture" cleared up, otherwise one wouldn't get baptized as one of JW since one of the requirements is to agree with all 100 questions asked in the "organized book", but I did not necessarily mean these questions are about specific doctrine which one has to agree with, but rather that one agrees with the fundamental teachings and recognizes Jehovah's Witnesses as the true religion, which would take care of "own opinion on certain scriptures". All this of course could be covered under the umbrella that we recognize the GB/FDS as dispensing spiritual food therefor whatever it dispenses we agree with as the truth....well..... truth at the time . This is basically goes back to the header topic I raised.
Of course when I was going through the questions in the 80’s there was no mention of the  FDS applying exclusively to the GB. We know this has been a recent change as is evident in the 2015 version of the book.
Perhaps this will be something that will be re-worded one day.  However, it applying to all Christians has it's draw back, since how can all Christians be made masters of Christ's belongings? I suppose this is another subject.
If you can explain it concisely I would be happy 😃

This is, in fact, a pretty easy question to answer. You did hit the nail on the head, as it were, with the definition of "discreet."
Here's where we can begin to see why.
The primary Watchtower that changed our current definition of the FDS was back in July 15, 2013. The article claimed that the FDS was now specifically and uniquely associated with the Governing Body. There we see the following, which I am including again here, not for you, but mostly for those who might not have read it carefully.
*** w13 7/15 p. 20 par. 3 “Who Really Is the Faithful and Discreet Slave?” ***
In the past, our publications have said the following: At Pentecost 33 C.E., Jesus appointed the faithful slave over his domestics. The slave represents all anointed Christians on earth as a group at any one time since then. The domestics refer to the same anointed ones as individuals. In 1919, Jesus appointed the faithful slave “over all his belongings”—all his earthly Kingdom interests.
The first part of that old view goes back to Russell: that all of the anointed made up the faithful slave. Russell kept that view from 1879 to until about 1897. The assumption was that they would be appointed over all his belongings at the time of their resurrection. Then, in 1897, Russell discreetly published an article stating that the slave was only one person, one individual. Then, very indiscreetly, began publishing letters and articles that addressed himself as that faithful and wise servant (FDS), allowed himself to be referred to like this at conventions, and began referring to the Watchtower publications as "food at the proper time" or "meat in due season."
Watchtower publications have said that Russell personally admitted to being the FDS in private. The publications have also stated that, when asked, he would sometimes respond: "Some say the Society is [that servant] . . . some say that I am."
An attempt to apply another faithful steward parable to Rutherford began shortly after Russell died. But Rutherford himself continued to teach that Russell had personally been that faithful and wise servant. 
That didn't last more than a decade, though, because Rutherford went back to Russell's original view that all the 144,000 made up the faithful slave class, and that they fed one another, including themselves, as the domestics. Later it was added that 1919 had been the year that they were appointed over all Christ's belongings. By the 1950's, the "governing body" as the representative officers of the Watch Tower Society began associating themselves more directly with the work of that "faithful and discreet slave."
*** w58 1/15 pp. 45-47 pars. 17-23 Overseers in Apocalyptic Times ***
Can it still be true that the holy spirit appoints overseers over the congregations of true Christians today? Since the spirit is God’s invisible active force and is silent and unfeelable, how could we be sure that the appointing of overseers is by it today? The Holy Bible, God’s Word, makes this certain.. . .  Since 1919 God’s organization has risen up to let the light of his glory shine amid the gross darkness of this world, and the time has come for the fulfillment of his promise: “I will . . . make thy chiefs peaceful and thine overseers righteous.” (Isa. 60:1, 2, 17, AS; LXX; Thomson; Bagster) We are living also in the time of final fulfillment of the prophecy to which the apostle Peter referred on the day of Pentecost, namely: “It shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: and also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my Spirit.” (Joel 2:28, 29, AS; Acts 2:16-18) We should therefore expect the spirit’s activity to include appointing overseers.
19 As in the days of the apostles, the Christian flock of Jehovah God has over it a visible governing body. It acts for and in expression of the “faithful and discreet slave” whom Jesus Christ has appointed since coming into his kingdom in the heavens in 1914. When warning his apostles about his coming for the judgment of his followers at an unknown hour in the time of the end of this old world, Jesus said: “Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics to give them their food at the proper time? Happy is that slave if his master on arriving finds him doing so. Truly I say to you, He will appoint him over all his belongings.” (Matt. 24:45-47) Since 1919 this “faithful and discreet slave,” who is a composite person made up of all anointed Christian joint heirs of Jesus Christ, has been taking care of “all his belongings” on earth. The slave has been faithfully giving out the spiritual, Biblical food at the proper time, so that there is no spiritual famine among the Christian witnesses of Jehovah. To make this “faithful and discreet slave” class equal to their heavy responsibilities in these last days, God through Christ has poured out his spirit upon them in these last days, in complete fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy.
20 The governing body of the “faithful and discreet slave” class is taken from the members of this same anointed, spirit-filled class. By God’s spirit it is functioning. So, then, when the appointment of overseers is made by this governing body in harmony with the requirements laid down for overseers, it is really by the spirit that such overseers are appointed, although through human intermediaries. As the modern history of Jehovah’s witnesses shows, this is specially true since 1932, when the system of elective elders and deacons [ministerial servants] was done away with in their congregations.
21 The governing body of mature members of the “faithful and discreet slave” class always seeks the guidance of God’s holy spirit in appointing responsible men in the congregations overseers, together with their assistants, the ministerial servants. They do not act according to any personal favoritism or any bias. . . .
22 When, now, the governing body designates overseers that meet those plainly stated requirements, it is really the holy spirit that leads to the appointing of such overseers; it is really the holy spirit that makes such overseers. This fact becomes more evident when we note that it is also the fullness of the indwelling of the holy spirit in the candidate for the office of overseer that influences his appointment. The candidate must show that he is filled with the spirit by the way he conducts himself and his family (if he has one). . . .
23 In consideration of the spirit’s fruitage produced by the candidate and in harmony with the written requirements set out in the Holy Scriptures written by men under the operation of the holy spirit, the governing body acts, being itself moved by the holy spirit for which it prays to God that it may guide the governing body. In every respect, then, the spirit of God comes to the fore in the matter of appointing overseers. So today as well as in Paul’s day it may be said that the holy spirit appoints overseers over the flock of God that he purchased “with the blood of his own Son.” (Acts 20:28, Schonfield) If in course of time any overseer turns out bad, we must remember that even Judas Iscariot, whom Jesus himself selected to be an apostolic overseer, turned out bad, betraying his own Overseer, the Chief Shepherd, to his enemies to be killed.
I included a little extra from the context of the earlier Watchtower as foundation for discussing some related aspects such as the actual meaning of spirit-led organization, etc. But the main point is to keep in mind the two primary views most of us have held during our lifetime as Witnesses:
(1950's-2013) The GB, especially since 1919, acts for and in expression of the FDS, which has included all the anointed since 33 CE., but which has been appointed over all Christ's belongings since 1919. (2013-present) The GB, since 1919, is now the same thing as the FDS, which no longer includes all the anointed, but only the GB, and has only been appointed since 1919, but will not be appointed over all Christ's belongings until a future time when all of the anointed are in heaven.

Thank you for drawing attention to the aspect of circumstantial evidence. In this case, this was counted as a witness. Not hard to do since it was known that the couple in question was already romantically involved.

There is something else I wanted to add to this. It's not that JW's personal views are valueless, but if you look up the definition of "to harbor" you will see that it means something like "keep (a thought or feeling, typically a negative one) in one's mind, especially secretly....with the synonyms  "nurturing" "nursing" "cherishing". It's all about attitude. There may be something that a JW understands differently to the GB/FDS, they just don't see it the same way. If someone understands something differently to the GB/FDS, do you think it would be reasonable to expect that someone to stop seeing it that way just for the sake of it? Or has it more to do with the attitude of that person? For example, someone may not really accept the explanation of the "Generation" although they tried, but just can't. The immature person might want to make a big deal out of it. They may "nurse" their idea until it becomes unbearable and consumes everything else, including all the "truths" they previously cherished. Now the only idea they "cherish" is their own opinion. The mature Christian accepts they may understand things differently and moves on, and waits till things become clearer one way or another. Let's say at some point in the past someone had a personal opinion on a subject which was not the official understanding at the time. Some years later though, the very opinion they had, now becomes the official teaching. Does that mean they were guilty of having the trait of an immature Christian just for having that different opinion? Obviously not. But they would have been an immature Christian had they "harbored" those thoughts to the point of advocating their opinion and becoming consumed by it.
When it's not merely a personal opinion or idea but a clear unambiguous Bible teaching. This is why it's important to know your Bible well. Those who didn't get carried away with 1975 were cognizant of the scripture which clearly says "no one knows the day or hour" no matter what anyone else was saying. Some who did get carried away blamed the org. for their losses. It's up to each person how they react, in the end we stand alone in front of the judgement seat of God and render an account for ourselves, not for anyone else.

I have heard it said that soon pedophilia will be classed as just another sexual orientation and that pedophiles will feel discriminated against and will insist on their "rights".
Just to lighten things up a bit, are you the "man on the rocks" ?  😄: Cool song actually
 

There is something else I wanted to add to this. It's not that JW's personal views are valueless, but if you look up the definition of "to harbor" you will see that it means something like "keep (a thought or feeling, typically a negative one) in one's mind, especially secretly....with the synonyms  "nurturing" "nursing" "cherishing". It's all about attitude. There may be something that a JW understands differently to the GB/FDS, they just don't see it the same way. If someone understands something differently to the GB/FDS, do you think it would be reasonable to expect that someone to stop seeing it that way just for the sake of it? Or has it more to do with the attitude of that person? For example, someone may not really accept the explanation of the "Generation" although they tried, but just can't. The immature person might want to make a big deal out of it. They may "nurse" their idea until it becomes unbearable and consumes everything else, including all the "truths" they previously cherished. Now the only idea they "cherish" is their own opinion. The mature Christian accepts they may understand things differently and moves on, and waits till things become clearer one way or another. Let's say at some point in the past someone had a personal opinion on a subject which was not the official understanding at the time. Some years later though, the very opinion they had, now becomes the official teaching. Does that mean they were guilty of having the trait of an immature Christian just for having that different opinion? Obviously not. But they would have been an immature Christian had they "harbored" those thoughts to the point of advocating their opinion and becoming consumed by it.
When it's not merely a personal opinion or idea but a clear unambiguous Bible teaching. This is why it's important to know your Bible well. Those who didn't get carried away with 1975 were cognizant of the scripture which clearly says "no one knows the day or hour" no matter what anyone else was saying. Some who did get carried away blamed the org. for their losses. It's up to each person how they react, in the end we stand alone in front of the judgement seat of God and render an account for ourselves, not for anyone else.