Anna

This system of things has failed its young people in countless ways, with the predictable result that they are committing suicide in record numbers. Suicide rate of that age group has tripled since the 1950's. One Millennial site puts it: "Every generation uses the ceiling of the generation before them to become their floor to build off of. Instead, it feels like our generation is dodging the crumbling remains of the ceiling exploding above us." (allgroanup.com) Exactly.
That being the case, it is misguided to try to impede the one organization proclaiming the solution from the Bible. If they ceased doing it, there is no one else to take over.  So plain does this seem to me that I have sometimes crossed a line and asserted it is done for exactly that reason: to prevent the proclaiming of God's kingdom - remarks that have not gone down well in all quarters. But it seems either that or a cutting off of one's nose to spite one's face. it seems either that or the 'unreasoning animals' of Peter's description who act contrary to their own interests. 
I used to love giving the talk: 'Acquiring a Heart of Wisdom.' I led off with the by-now-trite illustration I've heard of how treasure-seekers dig through the dirt to find the tiniest bit of diamond, and how foolish it would be to reverse it - dig through the diamonds to find the tiniest bit of dirt. I then stated that, nonetheless, we would be doing exactly that for the next 45 minutes, since, with any time in the faith, you are going to come across some dirt,, and if you are not prepared, you will be floored, for it is the one place you do not expect to find any.
Then I reveled in tearing things apart for 45 minutes, both in the Hebrew and Greek scriptures. I hit my stride with Revelation 2 and 3, considering absolute basket cases of congregations, guilty of every horrible thing, and yet they were still congregations. The idea was to encourage the audience to have a realistic outlook on what they will always eventually encounter anywhere there are people.
Arguably, mature ones here who sometimes veer into discussing organizational flaws are not impeding anything, but by 'shining the bright light of journalistic truth' are encouraging everyone to shape up. Though that sometimes works, as often it is as when you shine a bright light upon cockroaches. They don't stop being cockroaches when you do that. They just go somewhere else.
Arguably, everyone is doing just fine here, and it may even benefit some opposers to hear frank admissions of faults by persons of good motive. However, it is another thing entirely to 'smuggle' confidential stuff, whatever that may be, so that Jay can put it on his website. He has pretty well demonstrated where his interests lie.
JTR, the strangest of all birds to me, regales us tirelessly with war scenarios about the boldness and courage and glory of men who SACRIFICED THEIR ALL in the greatest theater of existence. He would be shot in a heartbeat as a traitor if he carried on there as he does here. Does he think the military generals that sent thousands into battle were above the petty miscues that he lambastes others for here?
All this is not to be unkind to the young woman in question, who I did not know. She is caught up in the spirit of the age, most likely, that holds that revealing faults is somehow a sacred quest - that only good can come of it. Even Jay's breathless banner conveys his enthusiasm for tearing down: it is a SPECIAL REPORT! Just like the banning of the entire religion merited a SPECIAL REPORT on the broadcast site. It is not hard to see whose interests he serves.
It's regrettable, of course, but hardly a special report, as though  she was a freedom fighter lost in the most noble of causes. Otherwise, every downed soldier would also merit a special report, every millennial suicide would also merit a special report, and whoever they last engaged with would merit special attention as the villain of our age.
Can they get insular at Bethel? Can there be intrigues? Of course. It is the common bane of people. But I am loath to offer counsel because A.) I'm not qualified, B.) I don't have 5% of the information they do, C.) it's not my place, D.) Even when I identify a problem, that does not mean I have any idea how to fix it. The world's obsession with firing people for miscues results only in inexperienced clods running show - Jesus fired only Judas, E.) I don't think such matters are fixed though the democratic means of public journalism. It hasn't worked that way in the general world; drawbacks are as numerous as successes, and on balance, it is no better than hoping you get a nice king and not a mean one. F.) I tend to think these matters are self-correcting. If it truly is something from God, as I conclude it is based upon the proclamation of truth that they alone spearhead, then entities other than me will take care of troubles. 
 

Unfortunately, that wasn't just true back in the '80's. I have seen the same thing and so have others - and it's not just true of NY Bethel. The trick for those of us who have lived through and seen these lying machinations is not only to stay faithful to our dedication and respect for the authority of our organization (while being more than aware of things that might destroy the faith of our brothers and sisters), but to help them to stay grounded despite the faith-testing/destroying machinations of men who have something to hide, and who will lie, plot and scheme to protect themselves. To try to help our friends have faith that overall, we are a spiritual organization, not just the political entity proud ambitious men would turn it into.We expect this behaviour in the world, but when men in authority ("angels in Jesus' right hand") act as if they are in Satan's right hand, then most would have a hard time to rationalize what they may see or even experience within the context of their faith - it's just too "out there." But prophetic warnings in Gods Word make clear that this type of stuff will happen - (not just could happen).. It's just that people think it's "negative talk" or something that "allegedly" happens to someone else until it happens to them.  
I have a lot of respect for mature, battle-hardened/wisened Christians who in a spiritual sense, are like the valiant mighty men of old who faced dangers from outside and within in defence of pure worship. Although I love also my "weaker" in faith brothers and sisters who would rather act as if these things can't/don't exist or even acknowledge it, I wouldn't want to be like that - in "pretend world." I have always wanted to know the "truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" - even when it is uncomfortable - at least it's real and I know who/what I am dealing with. We can easily accept there will be wickedness from Satans system. Not so easy when it's from within "Jehovah's organization." But those who have this "tested quality of our faith" are a living testimony that these things are survivable, doable, and they can even maintain their joy in serving Jehovah stronger and wiser than before. 

Is this ever not the case?
Any report of suicide evokes sympathy. People are left to wonder of inner turmoil and so forth. Still, any mental health professional will say that the inability to move on after a perceived negative experience puts one at increased risk for self-harm. People who can't 'move on' in life suffer more often than those who can and do. What we have here, assuming matters are objectively reported - which I do not assume because I have seen Jay's other posts and he has made his intent clear - is a correlation augmented by a possible trigger, but hardly cause and effect.
Does anyone think when Kathy Griffin held aloft the severed head of the President, it caused no ripples in her Republican (if they were that) family? She is trying to destroy what they hold of paramount importance.
Of course, I knew neither the young woman, nor the circumstances, nor what 'mission' she was on when she was thwarted. (I suspected the latter is exaggerated by Jay becasue he exaggerates anything he deems harmful to the visible organization) Therefore, I can only speak in the abstract.
To a degree that may be true, but 2 Timothy 3:1-5 also must be factored in - how persons in the last days would be not open to any agreement, impossible to satisfy, fierce, disloyal, betrayers, headstrong, and so forth. Many today have no interest in reform but seek only to destroy. Divorce it from the field of religion for a moment, for it is clearly seen anywhere - the urge to tear down with no corresponding interest in building. Obama suffered it. Trump suffers it
It hardly follows that a group that merely wants to protect confidential information is villainous because someone takes her own life when she is stymied trying to extract it.

@Jay Witness
Didn't notice this until now. What a terrible tragedy. I didn't listen to the report, because I started a couple of others first and realized that they are a little too negative for my taste. I still have a few long-time friends at Bethel, and a couple of them will talk to me about anything. Some of what I get from them is a bit too gossipy but they are firm believers in the idea that 'what you hear in the darkness you should shout from the rooftops.'
I don't know if they knew this sister but there was a definite lack of communication and lack of openness since the middle of last year with one of my friends. I wondered if there was something going on similar to what happened in  late 1979 and early 1980. If they are back to talking openly about anything, maybe they will tell me more about what this sister was doing.
From a Biblical perspective, I don't think an organization like ours has any right to secrecy. I think everything we do, we should be proud to preach about, and humble enough to let others evaluate it, too. And if we do things we are not proud of, these should be shouted from the rooftops so that all of us, even the world, can evaluate it. I'm angry that such a thing could happen. Reminds me of how Scaramucci went flailing and embarrassing himself yesterday because he thought his loyalty to the US president gave him a mandate to just wildly accuse people and it obviously clouded his judgment. I saw the same kind of flailing back in 1979-1982 and I saw good friends lied to back in 1980 as a way to get them to try to turn in their friends, and I saw political scheming behind the scenes that would have even scared off a lot of good Bethelites if they had been able to see what was going on in closed doors right around them.
The open court system of Jewish towns and cities mentioned in the Mosaic Law is a much better precedent for Society and congregation decisions than the secrecy we encounter (and are expected to adhere to)  today. The only problem I see is privacy concerns for certain types of cases, yet justice would always have a better chance of prevailing if everyone could be aware of the decision making processes. They say that sausage and apple-cider taste great, but you just don't want to go behind the scenes to see how they are made. I would add religion to the list, until we can learn to be humble enough to expose our processes to scrutiny and proud enough to allow the world to see why we are proud to be Jehovah's Witnesses.

I have to agree with you there. Just the other day a sister brought up the subject of the convention and the talk about protecting our children. She is now the third person who absolutely did not think the counsel could apply to anyone being a threat in the congregation. It didn't even cross her mind. Those very few who are aware of this problem, and those who know about the Australia Royal Commission's findings, know exactly why this particular program was included at the convention. It was a response to the problem. However, not many are actually aware of that. I have yet to see a candid admission that we do have this problem among our ranks.
That is the scary part and has been suggested by many an opposer or ex-jw. I do not think much of the public is aware of this problem, as I have yet to meet someone in the ministry who brings it up. However this could change. I think that if this becomes a problem in the ministry, and brothers start reporting it, the GB might do something about it. In the mean time, have you perhaps thought of writing a letter to them, similar in content of what you wrote here? It's possible that if they receive many letters complaining about the lack of transparency regarding this issue it might hurry things along.
P.S. We had hospitality lat month and the brother was telling us about one of his Bible studies, who left the catholic faith because of pedophilia. I thought, oh no, what's he going to do when he finds out we have a similar problem! I know one sister who left the truth because she said she left the Catholics because of this.....

I have to agree with you there. Just the other day a sister brought up the subject of the convention and the talk about protecting our children. She is now the third person who absolutely did not think the counsel could apply to anyone being a threat in the congregation. It didn't even cross her mind. Those very few who are aware of this problem, and those who know about the Australia Royal Commission's findings, know exactly why this particular program was included at the convention. It was a response to the problem. However, not many are actually aware of that. I have yet to see a candid admission that we do have this problem among our ranks.
That is the scary part and has been suggested by many an opposer or ex-jw. I do not think much of the public is aware of this problem, as I have yet to meet someone in the ministry who brings it up. However this could change. I think that if this becomes a problem in the ministry, and brothers start reporting it, the GB might do something about it. In the mean time, have you perhaps thought of writing a letter to them, similar in content of what you wrote here? It's possible that if they receive many letters complaining about the lack of transparency regarding this issue it might hurry things along.
P.S. We had hospitality lat month and the brother was telling us about one of his Bible studies, who left the catholic faith because of pedophilia. I thought, oh no, what's he going to do when he finds out we have a similar problem! I know one sister who left the truth because she said she left the Catholics because of this.....

I know this is you pet subject @JW Insider . Maybe you should send this to the writing department at HQ .
I look forward to reading more when time allows,  and perhaps contributing my tuppence worth 

I don't see what clergy penitence privileges has anything to do with what's under discussion. If a person has reasonable suspicions that a child may be in danger, or if there is evidence that the child has already been a victim, then that person can go to the police, regardless of any confession by the perpertraitor. But really, the other problem is, lack of transparency that WE  have a problem at all, regardless how small in comparison, in our own words "one molested child is one too many". 

I have to agree with you there. Just the other day a sister brought up the subject of the convention and the talk about protecting our children. She is now the third person who absolutely did not think the counsel could apply to anyone being a threat in the congregation. It didn't even cross her mind. Those very few who are aware of this problem, and those who know about the Australia Royal Commission's findings, know exactly why this particular program was included at the convention. It was a response to the problem. However, not many are actually aware of that. I have yet to see a candid admission that we do have this problem among our ranks.
That is the scary part and has been suggested by many an opposer or ex-jw. I do not think much of the public is aware of this problem, as I have yet to meet someone in the ministry who brings it up. However this could change. I think that if this becomes a problem in the ministry, and brothers start reporting it, the GB might do something about it. In the mean time, have you perhaps thought of writing a letter to them, similar in content of what you wrote here? It's possible that if they receive many letters complaining about the lack of transparency regarding this issue it might hurry things along.
P.S. We had hospitality lat month and the brother was telling us about one of his Bible studies, who left the catholic faith because of pedophilia. I thought, oh no, what's he going to do when he finds out we have a similar problem! I know one sister who left the truth because she said she left the Catholics because of this.....

I don't see what clergy penitence privileges has anything to do with what's under discussion. If a person has reasonable suspicions that a child may be in danger, or if there is evidence that the child has already been a victim, then that person can go to the police, regardless of any confession by the perpertraitor. But really, the other problem is, lack of transparency that WE  have a problem at all, regardless how small in comparison, in our own words "one molested child is one too many". 

Sure, I'll be happy to start out.
By the end of this discussion we should be able to go through the whole chapter and give a kind of evaluation score to whether we think we have a more likely doctrine or a less likely doctrine. This isn't about whether the meaning we have given a certain idea is impossible, just a way of measuring if the idea is more or less likely.
I'd propose that we have currently been driven to accept a LESS LIKELY definition of the word GENERATION. (Example: "the 1914 generation refers to two groups, where the first group included those whose lifespans overlapped with a second group quite possibly around a point in 1992 or even later, such that we can now add the lifespan of the oldest persons in the second group to the 1914 generation until they might die off in the near future, or perhaps much later, such that the 1914 generation can now include a reference to people born, say in the 1970's or later, living nearly until the year 2050, or even closer to the year 2100.") This has already been discussed elsewhere.
I don't think the definition we give it in the latest Watchtower articles and JW Broadcasting videos is impossible, but it seems very  unlikely. In my experience very few WItnesses will attempt to defend it Biblically. The ones who do make the attempt, have offered scriptures that actually make a much better fit the more common definitions of "generation."  (Exodus 1:6, Genesis 50:23; etc)
Without belaboring the possibility that the current understanding is somehow POSSIBLE, I think almost everyone in the world would agree that it is a LESS LIKELY definition that we are using, than any of the common definitions. (Especially since it can be found in no Bibles, no Bible dictionaries, and no dictionaries.)

There seems to be be several ways to read Matthew 24 (and parallel accounts in Mark 13 and Luke 21). This has been noted by many Bible commentaries through the years, and even C. T. Russell admits some things about Matthew 24 that might surprise a lot of Witnesses today.
The primary discussions about Matthew 24 revolve around the question of whether it was ONLY about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E., or primarily about the final Great Tribulation on the whole earth, or was it about BOTH judgment events.  (Even if this were primarily about 70 C.E., of course, it would still provide principles to guide Christians in every era and generation, especially about the expectation of the judgment event. -- 2 Tim 3:16; 1 Cor 10:11)
Over the years, the Watchtower has proposed slightly different ways to read Matthew 24, including splitting it up into two and sometimes three parts, where the first part referred pretty much equally to both a "minor" fulfillment on the first-century generation and a "major" fulfillment on the "final" generation that sees the final judgment event. Then, a middle portion of the chapter was often said to be primarily for the first century without direct application to the "final" generation. Then, later parts of the chapter were said to be meant primarily or sometimes ONLY for the final judgment event on the whole world. None of the differences in these variations was very significant in the overall picture, because in general the Watchtower has seen the greater "major" important fulfillment of almost all of Matthew 24 to be tied to the final generation that sees that "parousia" or "presence."
If we assume that the primarily fulfillment of Matthew 24 was intended for the final generation, then the secondary discussion is about whether we have correctly understood what Jesus meant with respect to the sign, the parousia, the conclusion, the generation, etc. So, that's the basic discussion being proposed here: that we look carefully at Matthew 24 and see if we have not perhaps tried to fit unlikely definitions of words so that we could make our specific doctrine fit.
Of course, it is quite proper to look at unlikely definitions of words if the meaning derived becomes the only possible way to understand a passage and the only way in which it properly fits the context and related scriptures. But what if the more likely definitions of each of the words also produces an overall meaning that fits just as well with the context and other scripture? What if accepting the more likely definitions of words in the chapter resulted in an even BETTER fit overall for the rest of the scriptures? What if it were seen that trying to make a doctrine out of the unlikely definitions actually created scriptural contradictions?
What I'd propose is that we try to let scripture explain scripture wherever possible and then try to give an honest appraisal of whether or not our "special definitions" we have infused into the meaning of several words in the chapter really makes more sense than the more common definitions of these words.  We could start with general ideas that we can all agree on (hopefully) and then check those ideas as either more or less likely to fit the ideas created from other parts of the chapter that depend on special definitions. I think this will help us evaluate whether we have built a doctrine upon the more likely or the less likely meaning of the words that Jesus used.

I have to agree with you there. Just the other day a sister brought up the subject of the convention and the talk about protecting our children. She is now the third person who absolutely did not think the counsel could apply to anyone being a threat in the congregation. It didn't even cross her mind. Those very few who are aware of this problem, and those who know about the Australia Royal Commission's findings, know exactly why this particular program was included at the convention. It was a response to the problem. However, not many are actually aware of that. I have yet to see a candid admission that we do have this problem among our ranks.
That is the scary part and has been suggested by many an opposer or ex-jw. I do not think much of the public is aware of this problem, as I have yet to meet someone in the ministry who brings it up. However this could change. I think that if this becomes a problem in the ministry, and brothers start reporting it, the GB might do something about it. In the mean time, have you perhaps thought of writing a letter to them, similar in content of what you wrote here? It's possible that if they receive many letters complaining about the lack of transparency regarding this issue it might hurry things along.
P.S. We had hospitality lat month and the brother was telling us about one of his Bible studies, who left the catholic faith because of pedophilia. I thought, oh no, what's he going to do when he finds out we have a similar problem! I know one sister who left the truth because she said she left the Catholics because of this.....

There is no denying that the mishandling of sexual abuse by the JW organization has brought a great reproach upon Jehovah's good name. The response by the GB to these scandals brings even further reproach. I worry that many JWs are completely unaware of how these ongoing legal disputes are destroying public perception of our religion.
It was bad enough that many elders did not report claims of sexual abuse to the police, but when court cases exposed the abuse to the masses the GB should have immediately apologized to the victims for the mishandling and taken steps to make things right. Instead, they made excuses for the abuse and never took accountability. The inability to accept wrongdoing shows a major ego problem and a callousness. Furthermore, the GB has kept JWs in the dark by not addressing the sexual abuse cases. Shouldn't the GB feel a sense of duty to keep JWs informed about a major issue within the organization? 
I worry that saving face is more important to the GB than the safety of our brothers and sisters.

A few more thoughts on Irvin Zalkin
Irvin Zalkin knows that his cases involving Child Sexual Abuse of JWs are from time periods when there were no clergy mandatory reporting laws. He knows that in California, Clergy mandatory reporting laws did not come into effect until 1997. He knows the law. He knows why certain things were done or not done. But he is intentionally keeping that information away from the general public because he knows that if he explained these, he would not have such a sensationalist impact on his viewers/readers. It is very evident from what he says, especially in his partnership with Reveal reporter Trey Bundi, that he is hoping for an audience who is largely ignorant of the law, (regarding Child sexual abuse in these specific cases) and therefore he can slant his arguments in a particular way for maximum impact on the emotions. He is like a showman. He is very good at that I must admit. He cannot afford to explain things objectively. After all, he is a lawyer. That is why I say it’s all about exposure for his business, all about money. If you believe any different then you are being very naïve Ann O'Maly. Which is surprising for an apparently intelligent person like you. But I can understand that in this regard, it is not expected that everyone is versed in the law and legal matters. I am not an expert either, however, the difference between you and me in this case is that I have done my research, whereas you have done none or very little, as is apparent. You are quite happy believing everything that Irvin Zalkin and the media serves up.
The sad thing is, and some don't realize this: Victims who go through the grueling procedure of trying to get justice for what happened to them years ago, run a high risk of losing the case, and losing money. Of course the Lawyer will get paid regardless. We don't know if Candace Conti even got a cent, after paying off her Lawyer fees. It is quite possible she ended up with nothing.

The scriptures do NOT say that they laughed and scoffed at him. (This is the very kind of thing I was trying to address by pointing out. Just because something makes sense, and it might even be true, it's still just speculation.)

TTH:
Well, I am big .. 290 pounds, and tall, also .. 6'-6" tall ... and I have over the past five years or so posted about 7,000 comments on the archive ... but I do not care if anyone likes my posts or not, but I do smile when they do.
That is to say, I do not write for anyones' approval.
As far as a reward goes .. even when tied to a stake, and they stack brush and firewood around your legs, the reward for telling it like I see it ... is self respect. 
We are all, to the best of available information, going to die anyway .. so why fret about it.
Years ago (1969) while driving from Virginia to California, I stopped in Georgia at a random Piggly Wiggly convenience store to buy some milk and Hostess pies for breakfast, and some guy said to me "Hi Tom!, Howareya doing! Still taking photographs?" ( I used to be a professional photographer at that time.). It so startled me I mumbled something I do not remember. I remember the store  but I do not remember anything about the person except he was male, and about my age.
In 1977 Warren Publications put out a fictionalized version of my life's adventures, ( The Rook ) but other than getting the working  clothing correct, not much else had any relationship to this spacetime continuum. I still have the black vest and pants and hat, but nothing fits anymore except the hat.
I lament that if someone does visit parallel universes, that aging does not stop, and is cumulative.  Bummer!
Back when I had a beard, and looked quite a bit like former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, during the Reagan Presidency, I  was in a Home Depot in North Carolina, and I saw a black couple staring at me and talking to each other, and I grinned, knowing they were going to come up and ask if I was C. Everett Koop.
Sure enough, they came up to and asked "Are you Tom Rook?" . 
That disoriented me.
I replied I was, but had NO IDEA who they were. They told me, but I forgot ... but they said they had met me ten years before at a Kingdom Hall at "somebodys" wedding .. who I also forgot.
I guess I am just not a "people person".
JTR
.
.
 Oh .... and thanks for letting me live rent free in your head.
.
 

It means nothing in itself. Laudable people are there. But also some scoundrels. It's a big enough place. Maybe someday there will be a hoeing out. But for now they remain even when in serious financial arrears.
I live and die for the 'like' meter.

I hope I'm wrong too. My information sources are down to only a couple of friends at Bethel who will talk openly about anything, and because they've worked closely with some of the same brothers for several years now, perhaps they have a jaded filter. So it's never fair to paint with a broad brush. When I ask how Brother So-and-So is doing, I get a story that starts out: "You'll never believe what he did the other day . . . " And, of course, it's always something that I can easily believe.
I still happily admit that things are much, much better in the last 20 years or so. That's from both a spiritual perspective (doctrinal changes) and from a material and procedural perspective. The Society is managing hundreds more languages and millions more publishers and doing it all more smoothly and professionally with less "sweat." I"m amazed at how well it runs, and compare my own Bethel experience in the 70's and 80's as "amateur hour" compared to the skills available now. I think Jehovah's spirit permeates and overrides the human deficiencies, so that Jehovah's will gets accomplished no matter what.

This is subjective, as are my observations. But to the extent it is true, I'm not sure just how terrible it is. Obviously, it is not the ideal. Nonetheless, door-to-door never comes easily to some. Not everyone is a communicator. It can't be easy to carry around weighty responsibilities affording one respect, and routinely shifting to the field where there is not one grain of respect. Some always find it a struggle, and I will love them for trying,  even when they do not knock the ball out of the park.
Back before the LDC and its predecessor, If you wanted to build a Kingdom Hall, there were certain brothers, builders by trade, that you just had to get onboard. Everyone else was all-thumbs in comparison. These brothers had the expertise and willingness, and they roamed about instrumental in many a building project. But some considered them 'second tier' because their formal ministry wasn't that hot.
Let them bring their gift to the altar, even if public preaching has become a bit of a sideline from them. I fancy myself comfortable at communicating these days, yet I could not build a Kingdom Hall model out of Lego blocks.

Well put and very true. Individuals who are proud, ambitious, want to be adored...do not have the humility to do that work and even when they do, everyone knows about it (whether by title or otherwise. That's where you find members of the "Secret Service.")               Thankfully we have many others - both pioneers and publishers - who are a joy to spend the days with and love being out in the ministry. . 

The public ministry grounds a person. Stray from it at your personal spiritual peril.

I have seen that too - although not across the board. Some very fine brothers who are very active in the ministry are also good speakers. But the converse is most certainly true quite often. 
We had many Bethelites assigned to our congregation (not from Brooklyn) and the ones least likely to go out in the ministry were them. (I can't speak for other congregations though and I doubt that is the experience across the board).
 But "cold bureaucrats who never wanted to go from door-to-door..." can be found all over if you are privy to behind-the-scenes activities. They may have started off well, but this "corporate ladder" mentality of wanting to be noticed and be somebody can take hold if one isn't careful. Sure, all brothers are encouraged to "reach out," but again as we are often encouraged to personally consider: What is you motive? Some of the better speakers/C.O.'s even have a "following" of brothers and sisters who will travel to a congregation to hear them speak. (As we found out when they came to ours and others). That is unhealthy no matter who you are. Often/(sadly) when brothers and sisters see a "wow" speaker of the platform at a meeting or assembly, the equate that person as being spiritual and an example. But as you and I both know, that at times couldn't be farther from the truth. You can't always judge a book by it's cover. But again, that is not my experience with most brothers and sisters on the platform - but it is often enough for sure.
I have experienced something like this although my "time" wasn't in question. We were asked when doing Bethel construction to skip our meetings and assemblies while living on site. But the congregations we belonged to had a hard time accepting that, and gave us heat over it. As far as not doing as much in the ministry when occupied in construction projects, there is at least an allowance/tolerance for pioneers who may not make their time due to said projects - even allowing for vacation time. So the time, effort and skills these brothers bring to the table is and should be valued. But that is not what I/we are referring to above. It has to do more with the attitude. After all, that attitude was also manifest early on when some left the organization, NOT WANTING to go out in the ministry. 

That is far too simplistic. A disfellowshipping happens for several reasons and merely not believing something is not one of them.
So....I did ask the elder. Of course he did not give me a yes or a no answer immediately. He said it depends. But disfellowshipped directly and specifically for not believing the overlapping generation NO. Of course I already knew his answer because he has known about my feelings regarding this topic (overlapping generation) for a long time and I have as yet not been disfellowshipped and don't ever expect to be over this issue. It stands to reason. There is no scriptural basis to disfellowship someone for not believing something which is ambiguous, or not clearly set out in the scriptures, or is not a core teaching.  A case in point: The experience of Willi Diehl in last weeks WT study. He knew getting married was not un-scriptural, therefor he went ahead despite sanctions and despite some treating him as if he was disfellowshipped. But he was not disfellowshipped. Another situation; in the video at the convention last week, (Friday 4:15 - How you can by no means ever fail) the brother did not go along with the 1975 idea, because, in his own words "something just didn't seem right" he reminded himself that we cannot know since Jesus said no one knows, and that he was dedicated to Jehovah, and not to a date. Similarly, if someone does not go along with the overlapping generation idea, because they personally do not see sufficient scriptural evidence, then that is no grounds for disfellowshipping.
Back to the "it depends". If someone created enough fuss and caused divisions and unrest in the congregation because he insisted everyone came around to his view, then if that person continued despite nicely being asked to stop, then he could end up being disfellowshipped. Not for his belief, but for causing divisions. And disfellowshipping for that does have scriptural basis.

Maybe I just couldn’t see the point of this experiment.....all I see is what I have already read from some ex-JWs , especially one  ex GB member  who made it seem like reporting field service created selfish, status climbing, bureaucratic butt kissers (pardon the expression). He was right to a small extend, this did apply to a few, but for the most part, those few are no longer JWs . If you are "slaving" for Jehovah for the wrong reason, it doesn’t last. You don't need to see what would happen if you stopped reporting, true motives become apparent sooner or later regardless. That was my point.
Yes, I agree,  and it does get on my nerves when I hear such expressions as  “so many years in time in full time service" etc. as if these persons are somehow better than someone who is like the widow. But we all know that is not true. If we place too much stock on what others think then obviously that is foolish, because it is ultimately what Jehovah thinks that counts, and he knows our hearts and circumstances. Those who elevate themselves or others because of "titles" well, that's their problem....in the end they too will stand in front of Jehovah and render an account, regardless of what title they have.