Anna

For several years I worked for the same company, and when I moved into 787 7th Avenue, I had my first corner office on the 40th floor. An incredible view of Central Park and the Hudson River. The building is over 50 stories, and they used to have a company subsidized restaurant with several chefs to accommodate staff meetings and high profile clients on the top floor. I could get fantastic meals and make appointments with friends and family to come on up and show off our "Windows on the World" private restaurant. Then a French company bought our company out for a few billion, and all those expensive (and wasteful) perks disappeared, but I got to keep my nice corner office for a few more years.
So I'm retired now, and haven't been in the building for a while, except to pass through the marble lobby as a scenic shortcut, and check out an art museum they still keep in it.
But today, a helicopter crash-landed on the roof, and it killed the pilot. It also started a fire and a full evacuation ensued. They say it took half-an-hour just to get down from the 29th floor, so I can imagine what it would have been like from the 40th or 50th. It must have felt like 9/11 to some of them.
https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/manhattan-helicopter-crash-june-2019/index.html

People give their lives for any number of causes without faith in a resurrection. This noble quality of humans is exploited by "cult" leaders regardless of the damage it might do to the individual, and with no thought of benefit to them. Followers are merely pawns.
Interestingly, the word "cult" has come to carry a load of meaning and association  that has little to do with it's original etymology and derivation. Bit like the word "gay".
One current definition that sums up the way many use the word today is  "cult = a religion I don't like".

Just piping up here; I agree of course, but I'm sure you will admit that some sort of organizational structure is also necessary, especially with a view to the preaching activity...

Just piping up here; I agree of course, but I'm sure you will admit that some sort of organizational structure is also necessary, especially with a view to the preaching activity...

It's quite clear from your words that they are INTENDED to apply only to your agenda.
If all four legged animals are horses ... then a cow must, by your logic, be a vegetable.
Your Billy-think is fully evidenced by calling JW Insider "?winsider",  and thinking his screen name is an affront against God.
Using that same logic, Jehovah's last name is .ORG.
 
 

Billy ... If JW Insider's Avatar and moniker is a stumbling block to you, and you think it taints the name of God, you have some serious screws loose.
It's amazing you can walk down the street without having parts fall off.
 

But Jehovah didn't think they needed a king. It was a concession to their hard-heartedness. But a fully Christian system should be different. It transitions us away from the fleshly needs of Israel, and commends itself to our heart and spirit.
(Jeremiah 31:31-33) . . .“Look! The days are coming,” declares Jehovah, “when I will make with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant. 32 It will not be like the covenant that I made with their forefathers on the day I took hold of their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, ‘my covenant that they broke, although I was their true master,’ declares Jehovah.” 33 “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares Jehovah. “I will put my law within them, and in their heart I will write it. And I will become their God, and they will become my people.”

Not lying. Mistaken. Mistaken for almost the same reason that any of us --either currently, or in the past-- have believed the GB are a small group of men. When I believed it, I was not lying. It was just a mistake I was making at the time. I would guess that there are easily hundreds or thousands of Witnesses who notice the same thing in their Bible reading as they went through the illustrations of Jesus in context, and have reached through many of Paul's letters. Perhaps others will have already noticed that a leading member of this same Governing Body, F.W.Franz, once argued very coherently and scripturally that we should NOT see the Governing Body as a small council or committee like those apostles and older men in Jerusalem.
I don't think I have more insight than the GB, I was convinced by the Scriptural argument of F.W.Franz. But there's a good reason why it would not be plain to them. Long before the Governing Body was defined in 1971, the 7 officers of the Watch Tower Society already realized that they were responsible to represent the entire remnant of the anointed on earth, and found themselves soon leading hundreds of thousands of Witnesses and interested persons. No matter what you think, there IS something special about this particular religion. It is unique as a teaching organization in many ways. I've gone into the specifics in the past, but for now, I'm just making a statement of opinion shared by millions of other JWs too.
The GB who find themselves in positions of great responsibility for an organization that is believed to be specifically prophesied about in the Bible, would surely expect that their own position of responsibility must therefore also be prophesied in some way. This doesn't mean that they think they are inspired, only that God's inspiration must have foreseen, not only the fact of this organization, but also some special guidance for its leadership, too. They could have found this in "apostolic succession" as some other religions do. They could have found it in some special new "inspired" prophet as some religions have. They could have decided that a leader was the "angel to the church in Laodicea." They could have seen it in the "the Jew" with 10 men grasping their hem. But they see it in an illustration about servants feeding other servants. Compared to the ways many religions look to give "authority" to a select few, this is actually commendably low-key. But it's still a misuse of the verse. It's an inconsistency based on the March 15, 2015 Watchtower that shows why it is wrong to turn a parable into a prophecy.

Encourage is intended to be a broad term. But it is not separate from "Religious Matters." We humans often tend to be foolish and think that turning doctrines into some philosophical/exegetical  exercise is somehow more important to Jehovah than justice, mercy, love, humility, etc. The specifics of certain complex teachings or prophetic interpretations are far down on the list of what is important. For the most part those things are not even "religious."
As James said: "True religion means looking after orphans and widows in their troubles, and not being like the rest of the world." (James 1:27 - paraphrase)
(1 Corinthians 12:29-13:9) . . .Not all are apostles, are they? Not all are prophets, are they? Not all are teachers, are they? Not all perform powerful works, do they? 30 Not all have gifts of healings, do they? Not all speak in tongues, do they? Not all are interpreters, are they? 31 But keep striving for the greater gifts. And yet I will show you a surpassing way. 13 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels but do not have love, I have become a clanging gong or a clashing cymbal. 2 And if I have the gift of prophecy and understand all the sacred secrets and all knowledge, and if I have all the faith so as to move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 And if I give all my belongings to feed others, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I do not benefit at all. 4 Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous. It does not brag, does not get puffed up, 5 does not behave indecently, does not look for its own interests, does not become provoked. It does not keep account of the injury. 6 It does not rejoice over unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth. 7 It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. 8 Love never fails. But if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away with; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away with.

Over the weekend, I was in a circuit way out there in the back hills, and I came to know some of the strange ways of the local elders out there.
I learned that when they really got riled at one another, they would spit out out the most spiteful words that they could think of: “May you be assigned to preside in JTR’s congregation!”

Oh they do you know. You did!

(Matthew 13:8, 9) 8 Still others fell on the fine soil, and they began to yield fruit, (Matthew 13:8, 9) 8 Still others fell on the fine soil, and they began to yield fruit, this one 100 times more, that one 60, the other 30. 9 Let the one who has ears listen.”
9 Let the one who has ears listen.”

(Galatians 6:4) But let each one examine his own actions, and then he will have cause for rejoicing in regard to himself alone, and not in comparison with the other person.
(2 Corinthians 9:6, 7) 6 But as to this, whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. 7 Let each one do just as he has resolved in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
 
My take:  All Christians should be productive, bearing kingdom fruit.  Jesus already stated that he knew some would give different amounts, but still their personal 100 percent, if they are doing their best.
A Christian's activity should not be held up for comparison with another's.  Nothing is wrong with encouragement, though.
A goal should be set by the person himself,  instead of being prescribed for him. Whatever is done should be between him and God  and Jesus who are the Vineyard Owners.   Jehovah and Jesus saw the widow's contribution to the temple and were pleased.  Ordinarily no one would have noticed.
However, we should be obedient to those taking the lead, if they ask one to report time  one should report time.  Lots of things will be clarified/shown up in the future.

He is from "everlasting to everlasting" which can only happen in a universe that has no beginning, and where time happens all at once.
Well I presume God created time as we know it. It is only 'as we know it' because 'man' has divided it and subdivided it, but before man started measuring it, it was happening. It's quite strange to think that before time, before Earth etc, there was God, the Word, the Angels living in another dimension. 

Certainly there is free will ... all you can manage in whatever its is that is your hearts desire .... for good .... for evil ... or for misadventure.
I used to jump out of perfectly good aircraft, KNOWING in less that two minutes I could be dead .... but I did it anyway.
EVERYONE has freedom of will .... if they can manage it.
NOBODY has freedom of consequences, unless it is pure, dumb luck.

An example is this Satan's statement recorded here:
"So he brought him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the inhabited earth in an instant of time.  Then the Devil said to him: “I will give you all this authority and their glory, because it has been handed over to me, and I give it to whomever I wish."
Luke 4:4-6
 

Actually they don't. They are quite happy with the secular definition of the English word Inspiration  (Click to view)
However they do believe that the Greek word θεόπνευστος (theopneustos), translated as "inspired of God" is a word used uniquely of the Holy Scriptures. The English rendering used in the NWT2013 is quite  acceptable. It is self explanatory really, as the word literally translates as god-breathed, being a compound of the word Theos, God and pneo, to breathe. 
The word used to describe demonic teachings or utterances is a little different, but the concept of wicked spirits using complicit humans for the transmission of lies and propoganda is an acceptable Biblical teaching.
The use of the English word "inspired" with appropriate qualifiers is quite clear in it's specific application to Biblical concepts as it is also in a variety of secular contexts. The dictionary definition makes these clear.
All such definitions are acceptable and in regular use by Jehovah's Witnesses.  

What's wrong with my hair?

Might sound archaic in America, but not long ago I heard someone (non JW) in England describe a frivolous woman as a "brazen hussy". Usually this term is used in jest.

Quoted in my post?
 
The incontinence is more about uncontrolled immoral behaviour than an actual bodily function, hence the translation earlier as "loose conduct". There is enough information on the use of the word in ancient times to arrive at a pretty good understanding of what it means.
Incidentally, the literal act of urinating in public could well be accompanied by the attitude the word describes, and would then be construed as "aselgeia".

More importantly, what actually does the word "brazen" mean?
It is a translation of the Greek word  "ἀσέλγεια  - aslegia" which literally appears to mean:  in-continent. (ἀ-σέλγεια)
Various English definitions are submitted "unbridled lust, excess, licentiousness, lasciviousness, wantonness, outrageousness, shamelessness, insolence"
The word "brazen" has been dictionary defined as:
"bold, shameless, as bold as brass, brazen-faced, forward, presumptuous, brash, immodest,  unashamed, unabashed, unembarrassed,   unblushing;  defiant, impudent, insolent, impertinent, cheeky, pert; barefaced,  blatant, flagrant, undisguised”
The Cambridge Dictionary describes the American usage of the word “brazen” as an adjective, used: “(of something bad) done without trying to hide it:”
So it is a word referring mainly to the attitude of someone engaging in serious wrong conduct , frequently, but not exclusively,  in the context of improper sexual behaviour.
In Watchtower publications “brazen” has been defined as being:
“From the Greek a·selʹgei·a, a phrase pertaining to acts that are serious violations of God’s laws and that reflect a brazen or boldly contemptuous attitude; a spirit that betrays disrespect or even contempt for authority, laws, and standards. The expression does not refer to wrong conduct of a minor nature.—Ga 5:19; 2Pe 2:7.”
Is there really a problem in understanding how the word "brazen" should be understood in the context of human behaviour?

Yes. Of course. Moses had a hierarchy. The Watchtower has admitted that the organization can be thought of in this way.

I do not think it necessary to understand this on the basis of James being complicit as a Judaizer. I would say that the fact that these men came from James has no more significance than the fact that Acts 15:1 describes men coming from Judea.
The general attitude of of the apostles and elders to such "Judaizing" efforts is expressed at Acts 15:24. So these men mentioned at Galatians 2:12 were expressing their own preferences, not at the direction of James.
Peter, with an ill thought out and cowardly response, rightly incurred the wrath of Paul on this occasion. It all illustrates how easy it is to "talk the walk" as opposed to "walk the talk". The clear and assertive proclamations and decisions made at the circumcision conference in 49CE may well have been easy in view of the fact that the vast majority of Christians in Jerusalem were formerly Jewish, and indeed the entire governing body of the time were the same. However, when Christians of that background found themselves in an environment where far more Gentile Christians were present, it was a different matter.
Cultural and traditional practice has a strong hold on humans and their behaviour when out of their comfort zone in that regard is charcteristically to cluster around what they are familiar with. Judaizers appealed to both religious and racial pride and fear of man. The insidious effect of their teachings however was to separate men from Christ and to work against the interests of Jehovah's ongoing purpose. This was hardly at the forefront of their intentions. However, Paul was fully cognizant, hence his very strong and demonstrative reactions to their influence, both expressed in his reproof of Peter and his subsequent letters.
There is no dispute regarding Paul's recognition and admonition to others to recognise Christ as the head of the congregation. However I cannot agree with the notion of Paul suggesting that theocratic arrangements were unimportant. This is simply because it does not agree with Paul's own behaviour.
His acceptance of the spirit-directed action of the Antioch congregation prophets and teachers to approve his ministry into international territory (Acts13:1-3). His subsequent report back to the same congregation on the success of his mission (Acts 14:26-28). His delegation by the same congregation  to go to the Jerusalem apostles and elders on the circumcision issue (Acts 15:2). His participation in the ensuing conference (Acts 15:12). His obvious acceptance of the authorative consideration and scripturally based decisions of those apostles and older men as reflected in his acceptance of being sent as part of a delegation from that same group, and his actually being being dismissed as a part of that delegation to travel back to Antich to relay the decisions of that Jerusalem body (Acts15:22);. His subsequent returning to the Gentile territories to deliver the decrees of the Jerusalem apostles and older men for their observance. His acceptance of such direction, admittedly a recognition of Christ's headship as expressed through the officers of both the Antioch and Jerusalem congregations, demonstrated his acceptance of central authority thus expressed.
His remarks regarding a "human tribunal" relate to those in Corinth who sought to undermine his authority as an apostle.Their assessments of his qualifications were of no consequence. His other references to his authority and his seeming discounting of apostolic approval as a determining factor in the validity of his role as an agent of the Christ, are  to show the Corinthians that his authority at Christ's direction was as valid as and on a par with that of the apostles. There is no doubt however that all the individual apostles, including Paul, were quite happy to subject themselves as individuals to the decisions (decrees) and directions agreed by that body of older men in Jerusalem as a whole. 

I don't really know any of them. I know how the position got there, and I know what doctrines and practices they promote. It's because I accept most of those doctrines. 100 percent of the important ones, in my opinion. I don't think of them as a "governing body" except in a functional sense as decision makers who try to keep the teachings as consistent as possible for the sake of unity around the world. This is a positive thing about Jehovah's Witnesses that a consistent set of teachings can be accepted by millions of persons without disorder or contentiousness. The method used produces a danger of making it too easy to accept (and "enforce") false doctrines in the same way, but there are very few "false doctrines" in my opinion. If, in your opinion, there are many false doctrines, or if the specific ones you believe are false are that important to you, then I understand why your judgment of them would be different than mine.
Yes. I think they are making a mistake in this regard too. But, in general, only a very small minority of those claiming to be anointed seem to think things should be different. I'd wager that the vast majority of them believe they are being well represented by them. Also the GB do not necessarily think of this position as "over" the rest of the anointed. Remember that the service they provide is a ministry of a "slave." One of the ministries that Paul spoke of was the ability to "administer." A portion of the idea that this puts them "above" the rest may spring from the mind of fleshly persons who cannot distinguish a specialized service from being special. However, the idea that they form some kind of tribunal that should judge other anointed, or that others should be obedient to is probably wrong, imo. It might, in fact, spring from the fleshly, unspiritual understanding from their own minds. This doesn't reduce the value of the kind of work they can accomplish in such a unique circumstance, but it is one of the dangers that could befall any of us imperfect humans.
(1 Corinthians 10:12) . . .So let the one who thinks he is standing beware that he does not fall.
You may have pointed out a danger, or it could be that less educated are more humble and more receptive to spiritual truth. Therefore a decision has been made to focus the efforts on an audience that should have been focused on even more in the past. A simplified Bible, with simplified publications to go with it, and a simpler study method might all be good things, even from the perspective of Luke 14:11.
Personally, however, I agree that it has been like a pendulum swing to a slightly "simpler" audience after saturating a more sophisticated audience until further efforts on that latter audience appeared wasted.
Many current Witnesses have the idea that this is a kind of "dumbing down" of the audience resulting in a dumbing down of the new ones coming in. If persons are overly concerned about that, perhaps it is based on their own prejudices or an unrequited desire to show off just how sophisticated their own knowledge might be. In our congregational setting, the goal is love for one another. This should be even easier if all of us show more childlike love for one another, and can stop taking ourselves so seriously.
I think deliberate is a strong word to use with "err." For the most part, I think all the mistakes have been well-meaning. There are some mistakes that reveal a different kind of mental conflict, in my opinion. These can be looked at as deliberate mistakes. Sometimes it can include a deliberate choice to avoid a change when it seems a change is necessary both Biblically and practically. Sometimes it can be from a lack of courage or self-confidence. Similar to Peter and the "James gang" the organization has had a historical problem with cultishness. This is admitted in our own publications that there was a Russell cult. Fred Franz was steeped in that exact kind of cult thinking (parallel dispensations, numerology, date predictions, etc.) so that this mentality remained strong and respected until Fred Franz died. He had so much respect as an "oracle" that all these "class" definitions and prophetic explanations were never challenged much until a few years after he died. So some mistakes are more about deliberate hanging on to tradition, which blinds people to the validity of God's word. This kind of blindness is wrong, but not necessarily "deliberate."
Why would 12 be too many? 8 is about the same. 20 is about the same. Considering the new abilities of technology and the much greater size of the current congregations of JWs compared to the first century congregations, perhaps 1,000 would not be too many, or perhaps there is a way to allow millions to have input, and merely allow a secretary or a technology application "bot" to filter out the noise and produce a consensus. I don't think we'd be quite as comfortable with that. Humans tend to like hierarchies of people, representative government, etc., in spite of the potential errors.
Some do. I'm sure of it. But my point was that a hierarchy of people are in place to filter out and merge communications so that the GB aren't bothered by any and every little thing that comes up. Notice that in a response to something Outta Here said I quoted:
(1 Corinthians 1:11, 12) 11 For some from the house of Chloʹe have informed me regarding you, my brothers, that there are dissensions among you.
Paul had no problem "snitching" about where the information came from, and noted they had been able to get their issue to Paul directly, and Paul addressed the issue in his letter. There is a lot of secrecy in these communications today that I think is unnecessary. And there are stories of repercussions by those who used their own name.
Well, I'll stop here.

I agree 100 percent with everything you said up to this point, and then, of course, I paused a bit at this statement. I expect that it should apply to me as well as others. This was a powerful bit of counsel, and I'm re-evaluating my own position on what Paul is saying in Galatians and the letters to the Corinthians. The details of that re-evaluation will be based on the specifics in Anna's posts, which I'll get to as time permits.
I'd like to respond to this, but it's probably too soon, as I might end up taking back my current understanding. In that event, I apologize in advance, to any who were (or would be) unduly influenced by my own opinions and understandings. 
Of course, I would still like to say a little about what I think you are saying here. 
I don't think Paul had disdain for those taking the lead. He had a disdain, or worse (condemnation and "curses") for anyone who interfered with persons who had accepted the "good news." (Matthew 18:5-6, Jesus expressed a "millstone curse" for the same reason.) But this was not a general or continued "disdain" that held a grudge or couldn't forgive when he looked at the overall picture. I assume that Paul did not continue to consider Peter or James as stumbling blocks to the ministry after things began cleared up during the transitional time between Acts 15 and Acts 21. (Jesus didn't permanently call Peter, Satan, when he was a stumbling block.)
I assume Paul is speaking to the Galatians this way, because the Acts 15 meeting had already happened and yet the Galatians evidently still BELIEVE (for some reason) that there was authority (from somewhere) for demanding adherence to Jewish law that somehow overrode the message that Paul had already taught them.
Paul gives the Galatians an earlier example of this same problem on the same issue (where circumcision was the central issue, but by extension it must have also meant adherence to Jewish law and practice. See Galatians 5:2,3). In this earlier example the problem was focused, he says, on certain men from James, who caused Peter be afraid of the circumcised class, and who influenced Peter and Barnabas, so that Paul called them out on their hypocrisy. Paul told Peter face to face that he "stood condemned." (see NWT footnote or Greek Interlinear.) This appears to follow up on Paul's earlier words that anyone who declares as good news something beyond which they had accepted should stand "accursed."
(Galatians 2:11, 12) 11 However, when Ceʹphas came to Antioch, I resisted him face-to-face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men from James arrived, he used to eat with people of the nations; but when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcised class. (NWT, with footnotes inserted in red.) (1 Corinthians 16:22) 22 If anyone has no affection for the Lord, let him be accursed.. . .
(Galatians 1:8, 9) . . .However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond the good news we declared to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, I now say again, Whoever is declaring to you as good news something beyond what you accepted, let him be accursed.
But this, as I said, was not a general disdain for those taking the lead. It was a temporary critique of a problem initiated either by James, if he gave them instructions, or by these certain men from James on their own. Still, it was not a simple matter that Peter was  just more comfortable around his own people, and his old habits. Paul says Peter was afraid of these men from James (who were of the circumcised class).
Even of those whom Paul considered to have been made into stumbling blocks to his ministry, he did not blame the persons themselves for that. He counseled the persons who gave too much attention to personalities, personalities such as himself, Apollos or Peter. But he still accepted these "leading men" were ministers through whom the Corinthians had become believers.
(1 Corinthians 1:11, 12) 11 For some from the house of Chloʹe have informed me regarding you, my brothers, that there are dissensions among you. 12 What I mean is this, that each one of you says: “I belong to Paul,” “But I to A·polʹlos,” “But I to Ceʹphas,” “But I to Christ.”
(1 Corinthians 3:3-6) 3 for you are still fleshly. Since there are jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly and are you not walking as men do? 4 For when one says, “I belong to Paul,” but another says, “I to A·polʹlos,” are you not acting like mere men? 5 What, then, is A·polʹlos? Yes, what is Paul? Ministers through whom you became believers, just as the Lord granted each one. 6 I planted, A·polʹlos watered, but God kept making it grow,
(1 Corinthians 3:20-4:3) 20 And again: “Jehovah knows that the reasonings of the wise men are futile.” 21 So let no one boast in men; for all things belong to you, 22 whether Paul or A·polʹlos or Ceʹphas or the world or life or death or things now here or things to come, all things belong to you; 23 in turn you belong to Christ; Christ, in turn, belongs to God. 4 A man should regard us as attendants of Christ and stewards of God’s sacred secrets. 2 In this regard, what is expected of stewards is that they be found faithful. 3 Now to me it is of very little importance to be examined by you or by a human tribunal. . . .
I included all three passages for another reason. It could very well be that it's a product of a "fleshly" mind that might tend to undervalue or even disdain the leadership of those in responsible positions. Some disdain authority for their own iconoclastic reasons or for unknown or illogical reasons. But Paul showed above that it was the "fleshly" mind that gave too much regard to leadership positions. In fact, Paul shows that these leadership positions are unimportant. Those who think that such men are capable of making a human tribunal of some kind of important authority are mistaken. After all, all things already belong to the members of the Christian congregation. It's not a matter of these members reporting to Apollos or Peter or Paul. It's just as appropriate to say that Peter should report to the members of the congregation. Paul is surely saying that there should be no central authority other than Christ who belongs to God.
It seems that Paul's point here is that it is the danger of the fleshly mind to look to specific people in the congregations as some kind of authority. But all of us should be servants to one another instead, he says.

I think he means by taking a ‘wait and see’ attitude, rather than diving in and correcting matters. It does not sound as though they didn’t know just what to correct.
They didn’t go in lockstep back then, is my take, and Paul was confident enough in that to operate freely without ‘checking in’ for authorization. 
But neither do they go in lockstep today, despite obvious greater organization—which is entirely consistent with the greater field (and harvest) that is being cultivated. Many arrangements originate outside of Bethel, which is initially very hesitant, even suspect of them, until they see how it works out, after which it gets behind and magnifies them. Witnessing methods, construction techniques, internet utilization, for example.