Anna

I don't think it's quite fair to say it this way. I feel if the GB were trying to minimize their role in a failed date they would have not brought it up again, especially not when you say "many adult JWs did not experience 1975". Why not just bury the old dog. Most of those who are bothered by 1975, are already familiar with the quotes where WT admits blame. These quotes are not hidden. It would make no sense to bring it up again just to minimize the GB's role in promoting it. It would be very silly to do this considering, as you say, "the org promoted the date in its literature heavily". Anyone can go back and check this if they want.
In view of all that, it seems to me the intent was to make individuals aware that in the end they have to rely on what they know from the scriptures. This was confirmed by what Br. Jackson said. Also, on another thread, it was established that not only is "truth the truth no matter who says it", but rubbish (garbage) is rubbish no matter who says it also.

Probably just following the 1971 nonsense in the Aid to Bible Understanding. p460. (Who wrote that?)
The mistake appears to have been corrected in the Watchtower by 15/12/72  (page 768) when it is stated " that any married person who goes outside the marriage bond and engages in immoral sexual relations, whether with someone of the opposite sex or someone of the same sex, whether natural or unnatural and perverted, is guilty of committing por·neiʹa or “fornication” in the Bible sense."
Also, "Taking Jesus’ words for what they mean, therefore, when a mate is guilty of such serious sexual immorality the innocent mate may Scripturally divorce such a one, if he or she so desires. One who obtains a divorce on such Scriptural grounds is also Scripturally free to remarry, not thereby being subject to a charge of adultery.
This clearly marks a correction in the view expressed on previous occasions in the columns of this magazine, but faithful adherence to what the Scriptures actually say requires it. "  (Who wrote that?)
 

We'll probably have to stop a few people 'sodding pottage'!

I meant gaffe from a logical point of view, obviously, not how it affected people's lives. I made it clear how I felt about that in my reply to Gone Fishing. 
Gaffe also means "an unintentional act or remark causing embarrassment to its originator; a blunder"
So the reasoning in the 1972 WT was a blunder, a mistake, and obviously, later on,  a cause for embarrassment to those who made it, and those who read it.

I would think that those who are not clueless do not need this awareness teaching tool.
He said us protecting pedophiles are apostate lies. Not that child abuse in JW organization does not exist. He never claimed child abuse is not real. Why would he? Better still, how could he? 

I agree, the adage  "truth is truth no matter who says it" works with the opposite too, rubbish is rubbish no matter who says it. Except what constitutes rubbish is sometimes subjective. As for it mattering...well it doesn't matter to me, but it may have made a difference to someone who was in that situation. I am not surprised to hear apostates make fun of us and say something along the lines of "well, as long as he had sex with a sheep his ex won't be scripturally free to re-marry". Thankfully we no longer make these kind of complicated speculisations ( a new word) on scriptures, as was illustrated by JTR with his cat parody, except for a few minor things (at least minor to me) which I won't mention right now, as it's just my opinion anyway.... maybe one can understand a little the trust issues some friends are battling with.....
Yes, exactly,  that was the point I was trying to make in the other thread, when I mentioned the video about 1975.

Unfortunately it originates in the WT magazine January 1 1972 - This evidently is one of the gaffes. I am not sure, but I have a feeling this may have been written or approved by Raymond Franz. @JW Insider may know better. In any case, I have not seen or heard about this since....

I think you are right. Fred Franz wrote a 1969 article that got much of these concerns started over the definition of "porneia," and this article started a number of judicial issues which were typically handled by the Service Department (Harley Miller, Merton Campbell, etc.) Believe it or not, Knorr and Fred Franz had very little input into congregational discipline issues from about 1968 to nearly 1980. Harley Miller was trusted to manage this through his team. He was the chief "executioner" in those days. Fred Franz was a prophecy specialist and the primary doctrines he took an interest in were related to fulfillment of prophecy. Nathan Knorr was a bureaucrat, whose work running a fast-growing organization left him with almost no time for anything else. With the only other active organizational officers like G.Suiter, L.Swingle, and M.Henschel, the g.b. only existed for corporate, bureaucratic functions like signing checks, buying presses, paper, property and ink, etc.
The governing body did not exist as a "body" or even a "committee" of any kind until 1971 when R.Franz, G.Gangas, L.Greenlees, and W.Jackson were added to the corporate-defined officers. But none of these men, not even Knorr, even in 1971 would have thought it possible to suggest a change in doctrine, which could have only fallen to F.Franz.
There became one exception to that rule, because one member of this new Governing Body was put there specifically because he had successfully completed the Aid Book, and a couple items from the Aid Book resulted in policy/doctrinal changes. One of those policy changes was the creation (in 1971) of the "elder arrangement" with committees, which by extension, resulted in the creation of the "Governing Body." But Franz, in his book, says that even then 1971-1974, he still would never had thought of suggesting a change in doctrine, and the initial meetings of the GB were not about spiritual matters, but just bureaucratic matters like rubber-stamping the sign-off on lists of names selected for full-time branch assignments and traveling overseers. But Knorr began bringing in some of the questionable disfellowshipping decisions (from Harley Miller and Merton Campbell, etc) and other Service Department issues. Most people didn't notice, but the Writing Department was still on a 20-year cycle (updating articles that had been printed approximately 20 years earlier, starting in the mid-1930's) with a lot more, new prophecy-related updates by F.Franz interspersed.
So the 1972 article was to be written as a defense of the current disfellowshippings by the Service Department, and R.Franz was given the assignment during a time when he still did not question the general doctrines. Remember that the Aid Book didn't even question our chronology even though R.Franz already should have known better based on all the contrary research they found while preparing that book. According to Franz it was not until between 1974 and 1976 when he realized that he disagreed with the rest of the Governing Body who voted that a sister was not free to get a divorce because her husband only had anal sex with another woman. The Governing Body's opinion was that oral or anal sex or bestiality on the part of the husband with other women (or animals) would not have freed her to remarry. At this point he was sure the other members had it wrong and when the policy finally changed, he says he was happy that he was also assigned to write the updated correction to the old ruling in 1976.  
 

Actually, just a little reminder, problems with any sexual abuse, including child sexual abuse, in the whole wide world started with Satan. People just didn’t take any real records of child rape before 50 years ago. The same with adult rape. It was never addressed until quite recently with the 1988 movie the Accused. That movie brought the issue into the public limelight. As for third world countries, and Islamic states, rape victims, whether adult or children, are still battling to get justice and recognition.
Wikipedia: “In the 1980s, date or acquaintance rape first gained acknowledgment. Rape crisis centers were created to serve survivors of all forms of sexual violence during any phase of their healing process. Rape crisis centers and other community-based service providers continue to grow and serve their communities by providing direct services and prevention programming.”
and
“In 1986, Congress passed the Child Abuse Victims' Rights Act, giving children a civil claim in sexual abuse cases. The number of laws created in the 1980s and 1990s began to create greater prosecution and detection of child sexual abusers”.
Anne Hastings described these changes in attitudes towards child sexual abuse as "the beginning of one of history's largest social revolutions.
According to John Jay College of Criminal Justice professor B.J. Cling,
"By the early 21st century, the issue of child sexual abuse has become a legitimate focus of professional attention, while increasingly separated from second wave feminism...As child sexual abuse becomes absorbed into the larger field of interpersonal trauma studies, child sexual abuse studies and intervention strategies have become degendered and largely unaware of their political origins in modern feminism and other vibrant political movements of the 1970s. One may hope that unlike in the past, this rediscovery of child sexual abuse that began in the 70s will not again be followed by collective amnesia. The institutionalization of child maltreatment interventions in federally funded centers, national and international societies, and a host of research studies (in which the United States continues to lead the world) offers grounds for cautious optimism. Nevertheless, as Judith Herman argues cogently, 'The systematic study of psychological trauma...depends on the support of a political movement".
Not only Wikipedia articles but all others on this subject recognize that historically, sex crimes have not been addressed in any significant detail by secular authorities or courts of law until the recent decades, and are still not at their optimum effectiveness to this date, that’s why the recent government research into Child sexual abuse in various countries. One of the main reason for those investigations is to determine gaps in the government’s own policies and procedures, not just the policies and procedures in individual institutions.
Perhaps it would be a good idea for those who criticize the WT for the way they handled Child abuse in the past, to educate  themselves on how the rest of the world handled child abuse in the past.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse
 

I would think that those who are not clueless do not need this awareness teaching tool.
He said us protecting pedophiles are apostate lies. Not that child abuse in JW organization does not exist. He never claimed child abuse is not real. Why would he? Better still, how could he? 

This hasn't been the attitude in the org for a LONG time. They revised the Bible translation to make it crystal clear. Sexual immorality breaks the marriage bond.

Nothing surprising really. I find the aroma of my husband's cooking "sacrifice" very pleasing too!

P.S. Because you know how I feel about the "overlapping generation"! 

The whole subject of interpretation is complicated of course. I mean no one on earth can claim they have the perfect, or correct interpretation in every matter that is in the Bible, the GB don't claim that either. But there are certain rules and principles that are quite clear in the Bible and if one does not have any preconceived ideas or an agenda, and lets the Bible speak for itself, then I am sure you will agree that one is that much closer in getting the correct interpretation. I personally believe that the GB's interpretation of core, fundamental Bible teachings is absolutely correct. There are a host of other things (too many to go into here, maybe a new topic could be started on that) that to me prove we are the true religion, despite mistakes and hiccoughs. I also believe the Bible says there is only one true religion. I do not think the GB is inspired, and has to work hard just like any one of us to figure out correct meaning and interpretation, and has to be willing to change their mind with additional proof or information. We can all ask for holy spirit, and we can all be guided by it. If your interpretation of the Bible is different to the GB, then that's fine. And if you don't want to keep it to yourself, start a new religion

Unfortunately it originates in the WT magazine January 1 1972 - This evidently is one of the gaffes. I am not sure, but I have a feeling this may have been written or approved by Raymond Franz. @JW Insider may know better. In any case, I have not seen or heard about this since....

This is just unadulterated Rubbish! It does not matter where it originates!
Jesus said: (1st Century):
Matthew 5:32: "everyone divorcing his wife, except on account of sexual immorality (porneia), makes her a subject for adultery"
Matthew 19:9: "whoever divorces his wife, except on the grounds of sexual immorality (porneia), and marries another commits adultery"
Jehovah's Witnesses said (1988):
Insight from the Scriptures (1988) v1 p642:
"Sexually immoral acts committed by a married person with someone of the same sex (homosexuality) are filthy and disgusting. Unrepentant persons of this type will not inherit God’s Kingdom. And, of course, bestiality is Scripturally condemned. (Le 18:22, 23; Ro 1:24-27; 1Co 6:9, 10) These grossly filthy acts come under the broad designation por·neiʹa. It is also noteworthy that, under the Mosaic Law, homosexuality and bestiality carried the death penalty, freeing the innocent mate for remarriage.—Le 20:13, 15, 16."
It is also worth remembering what Paul said to Timothy at 1 Timothy 1:9-10: "recognizing that law is made, not for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, ungodly and sinners, disloyal and profane, murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, manslayers, sexually immoral people, men who practice homosexuality, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and everything else that is in opposition to the wholesome teaching"
Regardless of the statistical assaults of determined mudslingers, I would venture that, for the majority of Jehovah's Witnesses, grappling with definitions of fornication and what constitutes permissable extremes of sexual deviancy has not been at the top of their list of after-party small talk topics. I would also hazard a guess that, over the years, many of those charged with spirtual guidance and shepherding responsibilities would have been fairly naive in these matters also. (This is relected in historical discussions on such subjects. See the 1970's references quoted above). 
Now, (2017), there is an ever-escalating need to re-evaluate and become educated in these matters, in a non-prurient context, within the congregation. Contributing to this are: 
the escalation of sexual immorality in the world at large, the large numbers of "skinned and thrown about" sheep-like ones coming into the organisation the determined assault of opportunist predators on the true Christian congregation, seeing it as a victim pool the determined attempts of society to sexualise at a younger and younger age, the increasing institutional abandonment of scriptural norms of sexual behaviour, the institutional abandonment of traditional gender definition and roles, the growing preoccupation with sexual activity and experimentation, the saturation of all media with sexually oriented behaviour and images the glorification of sexual abnormality in the entertainment world the globalisation of uncensored pornographic media due to internet penetration...... You can add what ever you like to this list. As far as I can see, that re-evaluation and educational program is in place and is progressing effectively in the opposite direction, but, you had better believe it..... We are at war!
Eph.6:12: "we have a struggle, not against blood and flesh, but against the governments, against the authorities, against the world rulers of this darkness, against the wicked spirit forces in the heavenly places."
 
 

Never going to ask that, never!

They are going to heaven of course, but they aren't doing an irresponsible runner like those ones who slipped off to Tartarus all those years ago.
Oh dear..but you are right..so many questions....At least I can't see "Are we there yet? in among them................
Seriously, just because we are taking "firm hold of the robe of a Jew'" (Zech.8:23),  we must not get the idea we are going to get through Armageddon by "riding on  our parent's coat tails" as it were. This will be no "walk in the park", regardless of the admonition at 2Chr.20:17.
We need the determination of Habbakuk as recorded at Hab.3:16-19. That includes facing the possibility that "[the] flock may actually be severed from [the] pen" (NWT 1984). We may well have to rely solely on our informed relationship with Jehovah at times, but I am sure that not one of Jehovah's people will be "left in the lurch", (NWT1984), when the time comes.
It is not for now to tell the story of our salvation in detail, because it has not yet occurred. But rest assured, if we continue to follow the directions that have led us up until now, then we will echo in real time, (not only in prophecy), the words of Habbakuk who said: "Yet, as for me, I will exult in Jehovah himself; I will be joyful in the God of my salvation" Hab.3:18.

You are right, wrong choice of words. I should have said "it could be misunderstood to mean".....all sorts of things actually. Just too ambiguous. Those kind of statements are exactly the type that cause people to speculate on very "specific" things and then get to having those kind of "narrow minded" ideas you mention. Thankfully the older wise sister put things into proper perspective. Also, it gets people hung up on some kind of specific "announcements" or "revelations". I've seen it, friends discussing this and speculating  on it, especially when there is some significant shift on the world scene....
It raises more questions than it answers, for example:
How will these “new instructions” come from Jehovah, if Jehovah talks to us exclusively through the Bible, and we cannot add anything more to the Bible, and new scrolls won’t be opened till after Armageddon? In other words, instructions that we get now, are either based on the Bible, or on organizational procedures which are based on Bible principles and on common sense. There are no specific instructions on how to survive Armageddon in the Bible (except for the obvious qualifications, to even be considered). So where will these come from?? Instructions we receive now we can check for ourselves in the Bible as per Br. Jackson’s comment "that they be in harmony with the Bible". Are we to believe there will be instructions that we won’t be able to check? How would we be able to decide whether this was "right direction or wrong direction" as per Br. Jackson? Wouldn’t it be more like blind obedience? Is this idea scriptural? In the past, Jehovah’s people had prophets to warn them. Jehovah spoke directly to those prophets. We don’t. We have the Bible right? And the slave that distributes spiritual food. So where will these instructions come from?
Won't they be in heaven by then?
Good points regarding "strangeness" . What I wonder though is; who in actuality is going to deliver those instructions?
I'm not quite satisfied with the answer... yet. Sorry, my own dear mother said I could flog a horse to death.....

I would perhaps say it wasn't as often as opposers make out. Sure, there have been some blunders, which is what inevitably happens on any road of discovery. Same with medicine and science etc. This is why the GB reminded us that they are not inspired. I think the other  reason they mentioned this might have been because some of us truly believed that every Wednesday they received direct messages from God. And still now, some believe they receive some kind of epiphany on a regular basis. This is one reason why I started this topic, because I was wondering if they were alluding to the fact that they will have some kind of vision which will enable them to give these "instructions". Armageddon will be a supernatural war, and the GB will already be in heaven, so my reasoning was along the lines that we too will be saved due to supernatural intervention, rather than some instructions from elders (who will have received a vision?? surely not).
As I already posted in my previous reply to you Br. Jackson's explanation, obedience is based on our (yours and mine) understanding of the scriptures, which you can say are based on the GB's interpretation, but nevertheless are either agreed to, by us, or not.  Mostly we agree with the GB's interpretation and that is why we are in the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses. So I think the level of obedience is based on that. Perhaps to illustrate, when the GB directly or indirectly alluded to something special happening in 1975, that something special being the "end", many friends got excited (understandably) and started doing things which they perhaps would not do otherwise. Some of the things were commendable, like pioneering, so the GB would naturally not discourage that, but to cut all ties with the practical aspects of life, like selling houses and other assets and spending the money in anticipation that they would never need it again was foolish and not based on the scriptures, because as that brother pointed out in the convention video, the Bible never gave a specific time or date, in fact it would come as a thief in the night. So the brother was relying on HIS knowledge of the scriptures (as presented by the GB) and did not get involved in the "hysteria" of that time. Maybe he was already pioneering at the time, but he definitely did not start spending his money as if he was never going to need it again. It even seems that he kind of went "against the grain" of what others may have been telling him to do, I am not sure, I would have to look at that video again....
The GB never bring up things unless there is a specific reason for it. So no doubt there is a lesson for us in that video that they want us to recognize .

Thank you to the other contributors.
@Gone Fishing has presented excellent reasoning, @JW Insider counter reasoning, @TrueTomHarley realized all too soon this might me one of my "rants" that I don't raise anywhere else and that it could be the next topic for a letter to the GB that I never send, @Noble Berean went straight to the heart of the matter. Thankfully this post has been spared JTR's cartoons because maybe he has not discovered it yet, @Nana Fofana hit the bottle, Allen et al resorted to personal attacks and apportioning down votes left right and center.....so nothing new there, and last but not least Srecko with his obviously biased interpretation, and Bar Avaddhon with his complex interpretations and sometimes difficult to understand discourse but that is not his fault, Google translator needs to do a better job.
I don't have time right now, but when I do I would like to reply to individual posters in more detail...

I have noticed that as yet, nobody has attempted to answer any of the very valid questions and points you raise. Is this perhaps because there is no foolproof answer? I have heard many times Christendom say that certain unexplained matters are a matter of faith. That is why religion is a faith based organization. While I don't subscribe to the way they use this explanation (because it's more blind faith) we do have to have faith that Jehovah will surely not allow any lasting harm to come to anyone that serves him out of a complete heart.
I for one, appreciate your honesty.  I think we are all a work in progress in one way or another (including the GB). Always learning new things. This is why I posted this particular topic, because it is something that I wondered about, you may not be too bothered about it, you may have something else on your mind. I think most of us, if we are honest, have some topic that we do not see eye to eye. But rarely do we make a public fuss and tend to ride it out, wait on Jehovah and see what happens.
And also as @Gone Fishing pointed out Matthew 25: 34-40 “Then the King will say to those on his right: ‘Come, you who have been blessed by my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the founding of the world.   For I became hungry and you gave me something to eat; I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger and you received me hospitably;   naked and you clothed me. I fell sick and you looked after me. I was in prison and you visited me.’ Then the righteous ones will answer him with the words: ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?When did we see you a stranger and receive you hospitably, or naked and clothe you?  When did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’  In reply the King will say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’"  Jesus tells us that supporting his brothers, which applies to the anointed, so the GB included (and by extension to all of us) is very important. This of course does not mean we will support something we believe is scripturally wrong.  Br. Jackson also  alluded to the fact that it is each individual's responsibility to "make sure" when he made this statement at the ARC, I quote: ": “Now, the Governing Body realises that if we were to give some direction that is not in harmony with God's word, all of Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide who have the Bible would notice that and they would see that it was wrong direction”.  @JW Insider made some good points in his comment regarding producing versus sharing/distributing spiritual food. There is nothing the GB can add to the Bible all we can do is share its message effectively, which can include using Bible aids.
This brings us to the notorious question of interpretation, but by our baptism, didn’t we agree with the interpretation? But also I think it has definitely to do with faith. We had faith that what we were learning was the best interpretation we had heard.  Hebrews ch 11 gives examples of all those who followed Jehovah’s instructions because they had faith "in things not yet seen". Abraham didn't even witness some of the things he was promised.  
This is not strictly true according to Br. Jackson:
Q.   And do you see yourselves as Jehovah God's spokespeople on earth?  
Br. Jackson.:  That I think would seem to be quite presumptuous to say that we are the only spokesperson that God is using. The scriptures clearly show that someone can act in harmony with God's spirit in giving comfort and help in the congregations, but if I could just clarify a little, going back to Matthew 24, clearly, 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.
also:
Q.   And the definitive interpretation of the Bible from time to time is the Governing Body; is that right?
 Br. Jackson: Ultimately, as guardians of our doctrine and beliefs, yes, some central group needs to make that decision, but that doesn't mean to say that we are just on our own   uunilaterally making those decisions without research and input from others.
also
Q.   I take it, too, that the state of knowledge about the
scriptures and, in particular, historical knowledge about
scriptures, also improves or increases from time to time?
 Br. Jackson:  That is correct.  But there are some basic things in
 the Bible that have not changed right from the beginnings
 of the Jehovah's Witness religion, and I won't take your
  time, obviously, going through those, but it is important
  to realise what are basic things in the Bible.  For
  example, is the Bible from God?  There is no possibility of
  us changing our viewpoint on that" end of quotes
 
It is those basic things that I think we can all agree on. They are the backbone of our faith/religion. As for those other things, we may have our opinion, without causing any upset, provided we don't go and harass other people about them or try and make them see it our way.
Sorry, I am going to have to continue this later....
 
 
 
 
 
 

I have noticed that as yet, nobody has attempted to answer any of the very valid questions and points you raise. Is this perhaps because there is no foolproof answer? I have heard many times Christendom say that certain unexplained matters are a matter of faith. That is why religion is a faith based organization. While I don't subscribe to the way they use this explanation (because it's more blind faith) we do have to have faith that Jehovah will surely not allow any lasting harm to come to anyone that serves him out of a complete heart.
I for one, appreciate your honesty.  I think we are all a work in progress in one way or another (including the GB). Always learning new things. This is why I posted this particular topic, because it is something that I wondered about, you may not be too bothered about it, you may have something else on your mind. I think most of us, if we are honest, have some topic that we do not see eye to eye. But rarely do we make a public fuss and tend to ride it out, wait on Jehovah and see what happens.
And also as @Gone Fishing pointed out Matthew 25: 34-40 “Then the King will say to those on his right: ‘Come, you who have been blessed by my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the founding of the world.   For I became hungry and you gave me something to eat; I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger and you received me hospitably;   naked and you clothed me. I fell sick and you looked after me. I was in prison and you visited me.’ Then the righteous ones will answer him with the words: ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?When did we see you a stranger and receive you hospitably, or naked and clothe you?  When did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’  In reply the King will say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’"  Jesus tells us that supporting his brothers, which applies to the anointed, so the GB included (and by extension to all of us) is very important. This of course does not mean we will support something we believe is scripturally wrong.  Br. Jackson also  alluded to the fact that it is each individual's responsibility to "make sure" when he made this statement at the ARC, I quote: ": “Now, the Governing Body realises that if we were to give some direction that is not in harmony with God's word, all of Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide who have the Bible would notice that and they would see that it was wrong direction”.  @JW Insider made some good points in his comment regarding producing versus sharing/distributing spiritual food. There is nothing the GB can add to the Bible all we can do is share its message effectively, which can include using Bible aids.
This brings us to the notorious question of interpretation, but by our baptism, didn’t we agree with the interpretation? But also I think it has definitely to do with faith. We had faith that what we were learning was the best interpretation we had heard.  Hebrews ch 11 gives examples of all those who followed Jehovah’s instructions because they had faith "in things not yet seen". Abraham didn't even witness some of the things he was promised.  
This is not strictly true according to Br. Jackson:
Q.   And do you see yourselves as Jehovah God's spokespeople on earth?  
Br. Jackson.:  That I think would seem to be quite presumptuous to say that we are the only spokesperson that God is using. The scriptures clearly show that someone can act in harmony with God's spirit in giving comfort and help in the congregations, but if I could just clarify a little, going back to Matthew 24, clearly, 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.
also:
Q.   And the definitive interpretation of the Bible from time to time is the Governing Body; is that right?
 Br. Jackson: Ultimately, as guardians of our doctrine and beliefs, yes, some central group needs to make that decision, but that doesn't mean to say that we are just on our own   uunilaterally making those decisions without research and input from others.
also
Q.   I take it, too, that the state of knowledge about the
scriptures and, in particular, historical knowledge about
scriptures, also improves or increases from time to time?
 Br. Jackson:  That is correct.  But there are some basic things in
 the Bible that have not changed right from the beginnings
 of the Jehovah's Witness religion, and I won't take your
  time, obviously, going through those, but it is important
  to realise what are basic things in the Bible.  For
  example, is the Bible from God?  There is no possibility of
  us changing our viewpoint on that" end of quotes
 
It is those basic things that I think we can all agree on. They are the backbone of our faith/religion. As for those other things, we may have our opinion, without causing any upset, provided we don't go and harass other people about them or try and make them see it our way.
Sorry, I am going to have to continue this later....
 
 
 
 
 
 

I have noticed that as yet, nobody has attempted to answer any of the very valid questions and points you raise. Is this perhaps because there is no foolproof answer? I have heard many times Christendom say that certain unexplained matters are a matter of faith. That is why religion is a faith based organization. While I don't subscribe to the way they use this explanation (because it's more blind faith) we do have to have faith that Jehovah will surely not allow any lasting harm to come to anyone that serves him out of a complete heart.
I for one, appreciate your honesty.  I think we are all a work in progress in one way or another (including the GB). Always learning new things. This is why I posted this particular topic, because it is something that I wondered about, you may not be too bothered about it, you may have something else on your mind. I think most of us, if we are honest, have some topic that we do not see eye to eye. But rarely do we make a public fuss and tend to ride it out, wait on Jehovah and see what happens.
And also as @Gone Fishing pointed out Matthew 25: 34-40 “Then the King will say to those on his right: ‘Come, you who have been blessed by my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the founding of the world.   For I became hungry and you gave me something to eat; I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger and you received me hospitably;   naked and you clothed me. I fell sick and you looked after me. I was in prison and you visited me.’ Then the righteous ones will answer him with the words: ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?When did we see you a stranger and receive you hospitably, or naked and clothe you?  When did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’  In reply the King will say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’"  Jesus tells us that supporting his brothers, which applies to the anointed, so the GB included (and by extension to all of us) is very important. This of course does not mean we will support something we believe is scripturally wrong.  Br. Jackson also  alluded to the fact that it is each individual's responsibility to "make sure" when he made this statement at the ARC, I quote: ": “Now, the Governing Body realises that if we were to give some direction that is not in harmony with God's word, all of Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide who have the Bible would notice that and they would see that it was wrong direction”.  @JW Insider made some good points in his comment regarding producing versus sharing/distributing spiritual food. There is nothing the GB can add to the Bible all we can do is share its message effectively, which can include using Bible aids.
This brings us to the notorious question of interpretation, but by our baptism, didn’t we agree with the interpretation? But also I think it has definitely to do with faith. We had faith that what we were learning was the best interpretation we had heard.  Hebrews ch 11 gives examples of all those who followed Jehovah’s instructions because they had faith "in things not yet seen". Abraham didn't even witness some of the things he was promised.  
This is not strictly true according to Br. Jackson:
Q.   And do you see yourselves as Jehovah God's spokespeople on earth?  
Br. Jackson.:  That I think would seem to be quite presumptuous to say that we are the only spokesperson that God is using. The scriptures clearly show that someone can act in harmony with God's spirit in giving comfort and help in the congregations, but if I could just clarify a little, going back to Matthew 24, clearly, 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.
also:
Q.   And the definitive interpretation of the Bible from time to time is the Governing Body; is that right?
 Br. Jackson: Ultimately, as guardians of our doctrine and beliefs, yes, some central group needs to make that decision, but that doesn't mean to say that we are just on our own   uunilaterally making those decisions without research and input from others.
also
Q.   I take it, too, that the state of knowledge about the
scriptures and, in particular, historical knowledge about
scriptures, also improves or increases from time to time?
 Br. Jackson:  That is correct.  But there are some basic things in
 the Bible that have not changed right from the beginnings
 of the Jehovah's Witness religion, and I won't take your
  time, obviously, going through those, but it is important
  to realise what are basic things in the Bible.  For
  example, is the Bible from God?  There is no possibility of
  us changing our viewpoint on that" end of quotes
 
It is those basic things that I think we can all agree on. They are the backbone of our faith/religion. As for those other things, we may have our opinion, without causing any upset, provided we don't go and harass other people about them or try and make them see it our way.
Sorry, I am going to have to continue this later....