Anna

I think that's just "old" speak, maybe wanting to sound a little Shakespearean perhaps? "Cowards die many times before their deaths; The valiant never taste of death but once. Of all the wonders that I yet have heard, it seems to me most strange that men should fear; Seeing that death, a necessary end, will come when it will come"......
But then guess what, I found this!
http://prestwickhouse.blogspot.com/2009/12/plain-english-how-yoda-helps-students.htmlo
So I wasn't too far off the mark after all
 

Sorry. Missed that one completely. Not your fault though. Just didn't expect it.

Now I see that my sentence was ambiguous. I was trying to be ironic. When you said that you listened to Fred Franz speak like Yoda, I meant "higher studies"

It’s always easy to see what should have been done after the fact. It’s not always the case when you’ve been thrown head first into a situation, one perhaps you have never encountered.  Reminded me of the  movie Sully (about the pilot who landed his plane in the Hudson) where he is being accused by the transport safety board of a bad decision;  for not having taken the plane to LaGuardia, as all the flight simulations showed he could have landed the plane there quite safely. Instead, he opted for the risky landing on the Hudson. In the hearing, Sully reminds the Board that the flight simulations, although using live pilots, are devoid of the human factor. The pilots in the simulation already knew what they were going to do, they knew that immediately after the bird strike they would turn the plane around and head straight for the airport. They had practiced this 17 times! However, in real life, this would have never happen of course. A pilot confronted with this situation would need time to decide what his best options were and he would only have one shot at it. To take this into account, the Board gives Sully 35 seconds to allow for this human factor. Needless to say, in the revised simulations, the plane never makes it, and crashes. Also, the preliminary investigation of the engines showed that one engine was still functioning. This was later found to be false, both engines were rendered useless by the bird strike.  Sully got away with being a hero, and rightly so. However, had the Board not been generous in admitting the human factor, and had the second engine not been found, his eventuality may have been quite different. He could have been charged with pilot error, and of needlessly putting the lives of 150 people at risk. Had some lives been lost, he would have been held responsible.
Child sexual abuse is much more complex than people would like to believe. One can never be sure of exactly what happened and the situation surrounding it. There is no black box or flight recordings.  Many of these cases are brought to light many years later.  There may be all kinds of evidence, but there is no guarantee that this evidence is wholly true or is fool proof. Many times elders involved in these cases have encountered them for the first time and due to human factor have not reacted perfectly or according to the book. On top of that, secular attitudes and laws keep changing.  What doesn’t help in the case of Jehovah’s Witnesses is that most of the abuse occurs in the home, and many times in dysfunctional families.  The world hasn’t got it right either. Hence the institutional investigations. These will hopefully improve the way child sexual abuse is handled across the board in all institutions, and thus will help to safeguard as many children as possible.....
The whole world does not know about this at all. It's not as important to many people as you think. (And I mean non JW people). Besides commissions set up to investigate this problem, the people it interests most are journalists, Lawyers, opposers, ex-JWs and JWs who know about it.
 
Don't put JWs in the same basket. You should know better than that JTR
 
 
 

???? only severely out of context!!!
There seems to be an unecessarily extreme position set out in this debate. It appears to be assumed that the idea of Jesus "becoming" king at a date considerably later than the time of his being " exalted to the right hand of God " excludes him being a king in the interim period. The debate appears to focus on the demolition of this idea, which is indeed a false concept, and more than adequately accomplishes this.
However, this position is not integral to the understanding that a time period could elapse between Jesus returning to the "right hand of God" and his subsequent future role in the execution of Jehovah's "judgement against the nations." Ps 110 (in full).
A simple parallel can be drawn with Jehovah Himself. Jehovah is termed the King of Eternity. As such, He is not (never has been nor will be) subject to anything, not even the passing of time, despite His existence FROM eternity until the moment of creation when He acted on His decision to share His universe.
Since the moment He created an intelligent being in the form of his only-begotten Son, He has retained His position as King of Eternity. Despite the attack on His right to rule, and the rebellion of Satan, an unspecified number of powerful spirits, along with millions of mankind on earth, Jehovah has never relinquished His position as King of Eternity. His eternal Sovereignty was acknowledged by his faithful servants on earth, not as a future condition, but as a current state, recognised by faithful humans, spirits, and His only-begotten Son. Ps.47:2,7; Ps. 90:2; Ps.103:19-20; Lu.4:5-8. It was even forcibly impressed on pagan rulers such as Nebuchadnezzar, see Dan.4:34-35,37.
And yet we find statements such as that of David when the Ark of the Covenant was brought to the City of David:
"Let the heavens rejoice, and let the earth be joyful; Declare among the nations: ‘Jehovah has become King!" 1 Chr.16:31 And the Sons of Korah, after stating that Jehovah "is the great King" (Ps.47:2,7) follow up with this:
"God has become King over the nations. God sits on his holy throne." Ps.47:8. And Isaiah, after referring 8 times to Jehovah as the existing Sovereign Lord, says prophetically in connection with the restoration of Jerusalem:
"For Jehovah of armies has become King in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem," Is.24:23 Jesus himself, when providing his outline for prayer priorities, said:
"Let your kingdom come" Matt.6:10. And later, in his revelation, in describing " things that must shortly take place" (Rev.1:1), he points to a future time when:
“The kingdom of the world has become the Kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ"  Rev 11:15. And also that faithful ones say: "We thank you, Jehovah God, the Almighty, the one who is and who was, because you have taken your great power and begun ruling as king" Rev.11:17. So how is it that Jehovah could be "King of Eternity" (1Tim.1:17; Rev.15:2), have His throne "established long ago" (Ps.93:2), with a "kingship that is an eternal kingship" (Ps145:13) and at the same time become king on a number of occasions over the centuries?
Answer this and you will be on the path to understanding how it is that Jesus, who like his Father, was/is ruling as a king, and yet could/will, also like his Father, become king at the same time. 

 
 

The general rule is that where the law requires the names of even suspected abusers to be handed over to secular authorities, the JW organization will do it. That's further than most go. Two thirds of those required by law to report persons they suspect of pedophilia, such as medical people, do not do it.

The backdrop of all pedophilia stories is that authorities are frothing over their inability to make a dent in child abuse. We all know it. You can't throw a stone in any direction without hitting ten pedophiles. The authorities drop 95% of what is thrown to them. We all know that, too. Constantly we hear of crimes against children by people who were already on the sex offender registry, which is so watered down with 'innocuous' offenders that it is worthless as a tool to law enforcement. The young man who had sex with his underage girlfriend whom he later married does not belong on the sex offender list. The Economist Magazine in 2009 (easily searchable) ran a series on just how chaotic and useless such lists are.  Today such lists are mostly a tool of public shaming or even revenge - they do little to protect children. The authorities who must monitor internet child porn in order to do their jobs liken it to Medusa - one look and you turn to stone. The battle is not being won. It is being lost, and authorities are pulling their hair out over it.

It’s always easy to see what should have been done after the fact. It’s not always the case when you’ve been thrown head first into a situation, one perhaps you have never encountered.  Reminded me of the  movie Sully (about the pilot who landed his plane in the Hudson) where he is being accused by the transport safety board of a bad decision;  for not having taken the plane to LaGuardia, as all the flight simulations showed he could have landed the plane there quite safely. Instead, he opted for the risky landing on the Hudson. In the hearing, Sully reminds the Board that the flight simulations, although using live pilots, are devoid of the human factor. The pilots in the simulation already knew what they were going to do, they knew that immediately after the bird strike they would turn the plane around and head straight for the airport. They had practiced this 17 times! However, in real life, this would have never happen of course. A pilot confronted with this situation would need time to decide what his best options were and he would only have one shot at it. To take this into account, the Board gives Sully 35 seconds to allow for this human factor. Needless to say, in the revised simulations, the plane never makes it, and crashes. Also, the preliminary investigation of the engines showed that one engine was still functioning. This was later found to be false, both engines were rendered useless by the bird strike.  Sully got away with being a hero, and rightly so. However, had the Board not been generous in admitting the human factor, and had the second engine not been found, his eventuality may have been quite different. He could have been charged with pilot error, and of needlessly putting the lives of 150 people at risk. Had some lives been lost, he would have been held responsible.
Child sexual abuse is much more complex than people would like to believe. One can never be sure of exactly what happened and the situation surrounding it. There is no black box or flight recordings.  Many of these cases are brought to light many years later.  There may be all kinds of evidence, but there is no guarantee that this evidence is wholly true or is fool proof. Many times elders involved in these cases have encountered them for the first time and due to human factor have not reacted perfectly or according to the book. On top of that, secular attitudes and laws keep changing.  What doesn’t help in the case of Jehovah’s Witnesses is that most of the abuse occurs in the home, and many times in dysfunctional families.  The world hasn’t got it right either. Hence the institutional investigations. These will hopefully improve the way child sexual abuse is handled across the board in all institutions, and thus will help to safeguard as many children as possible.....
The whole world does not know about this at all. It's not as important to many people as you think. (And I mean non JW people). Besides commissions set up to investigate this problem, the people it interests most are journalists, Lawyers, opposers, ex-JWs and JWs who know about it.
 
Don't put JWs in the same basket. You should know better than that JTR
 
 
 

or even a "daft" copy?
 

Well of course you are right. If it's something JTR has posted then you can be sure that at least half of the time it's something he got (directly or indirectly) from apostate Web sites. He really should stop that habit, he's not helping himself at all, just helping to feed his already negative experiences and cynical viewpoint...like pouring salt on a wound. And although it's meant in jest many times, and sometimes it IS actually funny, sadly, one day it could bring him down to the point of no return. 

Some good reasoning there Melinda. In a nutshell, the worldly way is all about ME. The Christian way is about others, and putting Kingdom interests first.

The first one affects me personally and I have my own "theories" regarding this. Perhaps we can make this into a new subject.
The second subject I have heard a little bit about, but things already began to change when I got baptized, although some things regarding what's appropriate between a husband and wife still surfaced sometimes. But I have not been aware of anything in the past 15 or so years. I am glad. I never thought it was appropriate for the brothers to pry and get involved in dictating  what was a very private affair. I never really understood why they were so concerned about what practices go on behind closed doors of a married couple.....to me, it was none of anyone's business. Interpreting what was correct sexual behavior according to their interpretation of the scriptures was taking it too far, in my opinion anyway. What goes on in the bedroom should be based on scriptural principles, (just like everything else in life) and not on specific actions deemed right or wrong according to opinion.
The third point I have been following for some time as you have probably figured out. We actually had good policies but not perfect ones. Plus the trouble was that they didn't always get followed. It's a complicated subject and a lot of it has been distorted by the media and ex- witness victims who have a grudge against the society on the whole.  What is good is that our policies will keep on improving. It will be interesting to watch the new hearing in March https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/27353-australian-royal-commission-final-report-of-handlin-of-child-sexual-abuse/#comment-34899

I feel the same way. I have explained it somewhere on this forum, why I think this is. I feel it has something to do with their responsibility, which could perhaps be viewed in a similar way to parental responsibility. My experience with my own mother was that she tried to appear as perfect as possible. This worked fine when I was a toddler and little child. And then I got older, and I began to see her imperfections and flaws. It was quite a shock  for me really to realize my mother had the same, or similar weaknesses as me, that she was an imperfect human being just like anyone else. I asked her about this. I wanted to know why she never admitted to any mistakes and why she tried to appear perfect. Her answer I think is the key to how the GB might be thinking. She said that she needed to appear as perfect as possible in order for me, as a child, to look to her for guidance, to trust her, and lean on her with confidence.
There was a letter once from the GB to a publisher, which expressed those sentiments, and I have also heard it expressed elsewhere, that the GB cannot lose the trust and confidence of the bothers. So maybe this is the reason why it appears they are not humble, because with humility they might expose weaknesses which in turn could lead the brothers to view them with distrust. I personally do not believe that would actually be the case. On the contrary, I think it would lead to more respect.
Another aspect tied to humility I think is transparency. I would love to see more of that. But all in all I do think there has been a lot of improvement in these areas with the new set of GB.

Ok. Let me put it this way then. When a group of people allow certain opinions regarding themselves to flourish, regardless whether that group of people has actually promoted or instigated that opinion, then they must also accept certain responsibility if others misinterpret certain things.  Many, many JWs, especially the older generation, view the GB as “almost Jesus”. This is a fact. It’s evident from what they say. I have heard it and seen it in action. So then when the GB says something, or insinuates something, especially regarding the end, then people naturally get excited. Why should they get excited if it is clear that no one knows except Jehovah and Jesus?  Precisely! Because they believe the GB has information that no one else has, from Jehovah and Jesus. So if you are going to mention ANY date, then the friends will prick their ears and listen. The society got burned a few times over this in the past, so much so that one of the GB members who gave a talk a few years back in our circuit said from the platform “Brothers, we promise you, no more dates!”  (The talk was about the refined understanding regarding the identity of the toes of the image in Daniel’s prophesy).
Of course I agree with you that none of the friends should have reacted the way they did over 1975 and should have viewed it as merely an opinion.  We have all learned our lesson I think though, and this is why now the explanation of the “overlapping generation” is viewed by many as merely an opinion.....

Yes, many friends have the view that if they raise an issue, they may seem ungrateful. But really, the GB relies on feedback from the friends. How else are they to know where to make an reasonable adjustment if everyone is quiet, as if everything is fine? There is a difference between being overly critical and voicing genuine concern. The key is, once the concern is voiced, leaving it. It's been brought out into the open, and what happens next should be left with Jehovah.
Interesting. There must have been many more "sisters" with the same question. There is strength in numbers! Although it took decades of perhaps just a few sisters each year bringing up the same question until it finally reached the right ears....

I have heard of situations like this. Very sad.
With the kind of ambiguous information regarding what's "natural" and what's "un-natural" it can get confusing. Both you and Melinda have brought out good points. I remember the  ** tp chap. 13 pp. 149-151 Your View of Sex—What Difference Does It Make? that Melinda mentioned, and I recall not really being comfortable with some of the things it brought out. We studied the book shortly after I was married. Words like "sexual greed" "Sexual appetite" "uncleanness" in the context of marriage was confusing, at least to me. Including this sentence "It is true that husband and wife have a Scriptural right to engage in sexual relations with each other. "But does this mean that they can throw off all restraint? The fact that God’s Word urges all Christians to cultivate self-control argues against such a view." I had no idea what to make of that. It conjured up images of frigidness and constraint, instead of warmth as spontaneity. I am not saying that the writer was trying to convey such a negative image, but it left things too much to interpretation. What I mean by this is that the husband and wife could each interpret this differently, and then this could be a valid reason for driving a wedge between them especially if they were not very sexually compatible in the first place (it is fact that some people like sex more than others). And then if the married couple did engage in some acts which they believed were "un-natural", or if they thought they had "thrown off all restraint",  according to how they interpreted the admonition, then this could lead to a bad conscience, which is not a good situation to be in. It seems to me that too much emphasis was unnecessarily put on what happens in the bedroom in the aforementioned chapter of that book.
In contrast, this admonition is so much better:
How I interpreted that was that natural sexual intimacy is that which is between a husband and wife, and that kind of intimacy has no rules about kinds and limits a long as both partners treat each other with tenderness.....
But like I said, I have not noticed any more said about marital intimacies to the extent that it was in the past (60's 70s' 80's) and the above WT was the first after a long time and the style is completely different.  I am thinking that obviously you were not the only elder who encountered problems to do with marital intimacies among the congregation and that perhaps it was realized that these articles caused unnecessary and embarrassing situations, both for the married couple, and for the elders who were shepherding them. Why should elders be privy to what happens in a bedroom? Surely there are more important things to be concerned about...?
Just out of interest, how did you counsel the couple on the shepherding visit?
 

To be honest I find it difficult to understand what you mean. I thought the WT Jan 2016 was very good. I did not see any wariness made by the WT concerning one’s anointing.
Page 19 Par.10 Those who have received this special invitation from God do not need another witness from any other source. They do not need someone else to verify what has happened to them. Jehovah leaves no doubt whatsoever in their minds and hearts.
Par. 12 Those who have been invited in such a manner may wonder: ‘Why have I been selected? Why me and not someone else?’ They may even question their own worthiness. But they do not question the fact that they have been invited
Par 15 Perhaps you are wondering if you have received this wonderful invitation. If you think that you might have, ponder  some important questions. Do you feel that you have more than average zeal in the ministry? Are you a keen student of God’s Word who loves to delve into “the deep things of God”? (1 Cor. 2:10) Have you seen Jehovah’s special blessing on your ministry? Do you have a burning desire to do Jehovah’s will? Do you have a deep inner feeling of responsibility to help others spiritually? Have you seen proof that Jehovah has personally intervened in your life? If you answer these questions with a resounding yes, does this mean that you now have the heavenly calling? No, it does not. Why not? Because these are not unique feelings experienced only by those who have the heavenly calling. Jehovah’s spirit works with equal force in those who have the hope of living forever on earth. In fact, if you are wondering whether you have received the heavenly calling, that would in itself indicate that you have not received it. Those called by Jehovah do not wonder whether they have been invited or not! They know!
Page 24, Par.10 “How can we show appropriate respect for those whom Jehovah chooses to anoint? We would not ask them personal  questions about their anointing. We thus avoid meddling with what does not concern us."
So, why would they fear if they are convinced they are of the anointed? And why would they stop partaking? The only explanation I see is that they couldn't have been quite sure in the first place, because if they are anointed, they know, and besides, no one will question them because it is between them and Jehovah only. If you start partaking, is someone going to question it? Perhaps, if you are 5 years old, or are known to have spiritual issues. But otherwise no.
I have no idea, and I have no idea why you feel like you have to defend your God in the face of an elder body either.
I really do not see what this has anything to do with the WT/GB/Slave/Jehovah's Witnesses

Are you one of the anointed that has this "problem"? I have known a few anointed ones in my life and they were all very humble men and women. I do not know whether they ever wrote letters to headquarters with their understanding of scriptures, I never asked them. But I always thought that would be a little impractical, with all the anointed from all over the world writing to headquarters with their little bits of pieces of "knowledge". I just somehow could never see this happening. And then when the WT of July 2013 came out with the article "Feeding many through the hands of a few" it made perfect sense (at least to me) that not ALL the anointed would be taking part in feeding the "domestics".
par. 8 "Starting at Pentecost 33 C.E., the resurrected Christ used his apostles as the channel through which he fed the rest of his anointed disciples. (Read Acts 2:41, 42.) That channel was clearly recognized by the Jews and proselytes who became spirit-anointed Christians that day. Unhesitatingly, they “continued devoting themselves to the teaching of the apostles.” According to one scholar, the Greek verb rendered “continued devoting themselves” can mean having “a steadfast and singleminded fidelity to a certain course of action.” The new believers had a deep hunger for spiritual  food, and they knew exactly where to get it. With unwavering loyalty, they looked to the apostles to explain the words and deeds of Jesus and to shed fresh light on the meaning of the scriptures pertaining to him. *—Acts 2:22-36. "
par. 11 "Did Jehovah bless the arrangement by means of which his Son fed the first-century congregations? Most definitely! How can we be sure? The book of Acts gives us this report: “Now as they [the apostle Paul and his traveling companions] traveled on through the cities they would deliver to those there for observance the decrees that had been decided upon by the apostles and older men who were in Jerusalem. Therefore, indeed, the congregations continued to be made  firm in the faith and to increase in number from day to day.” (Acts 16:4, 5).........."
par. 12 ".............. “Through the hands of the apostles many signs and portents continued to occur among the people,” states Acts 5:12. * .............."
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/w20130715/jesus-feeds-many/
P.S. This doesn't mean of course that the other anointed are somehow limited in their understanding of scripture....they are merely not the ones dispensing it.

True. And you may be on to something!
I remember this WT study very well, including this particular paragraph and the sentence I underscored. It was the first time that something written in the WT really bothered me. I just had this weird feeling about it, that it just didn't sound right. In my mind I asked myself how was that meant, "communicating divine truths" ? And why would the resurrected ones communicate only some divine truths, and leave others out? This whole idea made it sound like the GB were getting some kind of visions, or ideas put in their heads (by the other members of the GB who had died). This did not sound right at all since the only helper Jesus said his father would give us was the holy spirit. And we can all be the beneficiaries of that, not just the GB. And we don't get visions or dreams so why would the GB get exclusive treatment when still on earth? The only time they differ from "us" is that they have "been called to heaven", I am not aware of any scripture which indicates that the GB would "receive divine truths" by some communication from heaven. In fact they have to work hard at discerning Bible truths, as they themselves have indicated.  This whole communication idea just sounded off and out of sinc with everything else. And in any case, I do not understand why there is any relevance placed on when the first resurrection began. I am thinking, who cares? How does this affect anything else? Jehovah knows when he resurrects, why do we need to know?
It will be interesting to see if we are given a new understanding of the identity of the 24 elders. If they are no longer seen as the 144'000, then perhaps Rev 7:13-14 will remove the need to think that the anointed in heaven are communicating with those still on earth.
Thankfully our reasoning on many matters such as the ones you mention has become so much more reasonable. But I agree, it definitely looks like there might be some change in the pipeline and this WT study might be a kind of " trial balloon" .
I am not sure I think this has some kind of significance. I understand this to mean simply that we shouldn't idolize them as if they were angels, because they are not.

I am glad you brought this topic up CMP. It is something I has bothered me for a long time and a lot of the issues you raised I have also thought about. It is clear what purpose the disfellowshipping/shunning policy serves. It is to keep the congregation spiritually and morally clean. I have no problem with that. We would not be who we are if we were lax about this.
My issues are these:
Disfellowshipping is supposed to be a protective and corrective measure. Those whom Jehovah loves he disciplines. However, what about when this protective and corrective measure has lost its purpose and/or is no longer relevant?
Continuing to shun a family member, who had been disfellowshipped in the past, but is no longer practicing what they had been disfellowshipped for, but who no longer wants to be a Witness (therefore no chance of re-instatement)  has never made sense to me. It seems to be all about being slapped with the disfellowshipp label but not about what is really going on. There is something amiss there. Jehovah wants worshipers who do so willingly, because they love him, not because of their friends and family. Also, Jehovah has given everyone the right to change their mind and to break their promise, at a cost of course, that being they will no longer be in line for everlasting life. But does the cost have to include being shunned by family members in the present life? Shouldn’t that be left up to the innocent JW family members to decide  how much and to what extent they will associate? Someone once argued that associating with a family member who no longer serves Jehovah could have a detrimental effect on us and could possibly lead us out of the truth as well. That someone pointed out an experience where one of the family members became an atheist and influenced the rest of the family so much so that they too left the truth. Well I say so be it! Yes, bad association spoils useful habits, but it is still up to each individual to heed or not heed that advice. Doesn’t Jehovah give everyone the freedom to live their life as they want? So if half the congregation leaves, what difference really does it make? Jehovah wants all to be saved, but not all want to be saved.
Could someone explain this to me: "No one should be forced to worship in a way that he finds unacceptable or be made to choose between his beliefs and his family" (“Is it wrong to change your religion” Awake 7/09) Why does this apparently apply to every other religion except ours....??

Yes, precisely. But we know it shouldn't be like this. There was a talk a few years ago at our assembly, you may have heard it too, which kind of addressed this problem.  The talk was "Is your conscience truly guided by Bible principles" The brother used a few nice illustrations, one of them was about a coffee machine. You can program it to have coffee ready at a certain time in the morning and so when you come down you can smell the aroma and go "Oooh, that smell of coffee!"  But will you think or say "what a good little coffee machine for making that coffee!" ? Probably not. However, if you come down and see your wife/husband lovingly made you a fresh cup themselves (which ever way they did it is irrelevant to the point) you will most likely appreciate the gesture. This is the difference between a programmed situation and one which was done voluntarily, out of love and the goodness of the heart. Similarly, because we are not programmed, the way we act reveals to Jehovah our true feelings.  The other illustration was about a car and a bus. He said that to get to a certain destination, we can either be passengers on a bus or the drivers of a car. The bus is on fixed time and is driven by someone else. How the bus driver drives is up to him, he could be speeding, running over old ladies etc. However if you are the driver of a car, you control the situation.
So he kind of compared Law/rules to the rider on a bus, and principles to the driver of a car. And this is the point I really liked: If we live by law, Jehovah knows you are obedient, and that is good. However, if we live by principles, Jehovah knows a lot more about our person, it reveals our heart; our love for him and the intensity of our desire to please him. Romans 12:2,
We are no longer under many laws/rules and that is good. Laws are time specific and situation specific, however principles are good anywhere, anytime. We should not be looking for a rule or law on a matter, but seek Jehovah's view and standards.
Jehovah treats us like adults, he lets us drive the car, he does not have us drive the bus like children. However, some evidently prefer to ride the bus! Hebrews 5:11-14

True Tom, I would agree for the most part, but I also think it is human nature (imperfect human nature) to problem solve. Things that work well are usually left alone and are taken more or less as matter of fact and for granted (unfortunately) But if something doesn't work right....well we either ignore it or try and fix it. How many times has it happened when the positive gets overlooked but whoa, if there is something negative people get together, criticize, gossip...get their panties in a twist. We humans tend to gravitate towards "problems". I think, and this is just my opinion, most of us on here realize that we can't really do anything about what we are discussing. But it feels good to be able to air concerns and read other peoples stories and viewpoints. You have probably heard about a particular therapeutic method whereby a person is told to write their concerns down on paper, but never really give or send it to the other person. It really works. I have written about 3 letters to the GB in the past couple of years, and of course never sent them, but it helped me to organize my thoughts and filter out what is really important and what I will just wait with and see what happens.
Yes, as you say, there are apostates who comment on here, and as you say they are pretty easy to spot. The good thing is it is our choice whether we get into a debate with them or not. 

I'm surprised that the above comment was allowed to stand here, for it has nothing to do with anything. Elsewhere this character was advised to take it out on the street when he likewise tried to hijack a thread to take down a religion he hates. He was advised to start a separate thread. Why should he think he can barge in here and sully a post which consists only of two Bible verses?

And what would one say if four Jehovah's Witnesses got married? 
And the other two, that were just a couple of Jehovah's Witnesses that got married were not attached in some way?

Yes. All of Jehovah's and Jesus's instructions are perfect, without error. So in view of that, how much, or how far are we to "listen" to the GB/Slaves interpretation if we know the possibility is that it could be wrong. This is why, before we become one of Jehovah's Witnesses we have to answer over 100 questions, and be personally convinced that WE personally believe the answers we give, and that the answer to these questions we personally believe are correct, (or as correct as is humanly possible), otherwise we would not become JWs, obviously.  I do not see anything in those questions, and the Biblical answers to them, that would warrant suspicion. Interestingly, I also do not see any references to 1914 or the  interpretation of the Generation.....