Anna

Summarizing this topic.
What are the reasons, in my opinion, provoking this situation, that make the GB appear as not humble?
TO CONVEY CONFIDANCE
Anna quote is, in my opinion, unsurpassable:
·        “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”. TO PROVE THIS ORGANIZATION IS GUIDED BY GOD’S SPIRIT
I’ve mention in this post that God’s people, and therefore the GB, are guided by God’s spirit. But in this epoch not miraculously. The lack of miraculous wisdom or knowledge (1Co 13:8) would make necessary display of characteristics such as “power of reason” (Ro 12:1)); “accurate knowledge and full discernment” (Ph 1:9); “sound in mind” (1 Pe 4:7); “insight” (Da 11:32) and so on. And these qualities don’t would come through “flashes” of God’s spirit, but by means of study, pray, effort, mistakes and rectifications (Da 11:35).
But, our GB, I think, is afraid at some degree of showing themselves error prone because this could show we aren’t under Jehovah’s hand in the eyes of others. I remember when I was serving as special pioneer in 1981 I was assigned to a small congregation with only one elder and me as his helper. All the brothers were newly baptized. I had to direct one Watchtower study regarding some change regarding the meaning of “sacred service”. The elder gave me the advice: “don’t focus excessively in the idea that a change was necessary, this could disturb the congregation.” The idea these new brothers shared, to a greater or lesser extent, is that we’re the organization God is directing by His spirit, and consequently the necessity of changes only should be seen as improvements, not corrections.
In spite of this, many brothers opine the “slave class” is humble because they recognize their errors. But in this forum has been shown evidence, for example, that the “error” of 1975 was distributed, spread between all brotherhood. Even worse, the decrease in the number of publishers was attributed to the influence of “some apostates” rather than the disillusion caused for the excessive emphasis on dates (w86 12/15 p. 20 pars. 20-21). Even Allen Smith (thanks for this) quoted this:
·        *** yb12 pp. 142-143 Norway *** There was a steady increase in publishers from the mid-1960’s till the mid-1970’s. But expectations regarding the year 1975 proved to be a test of faith for some brothers. When the great tribulation did not come in 1975, a few left the organization; and between 1976 and 1980, there was a slight decrease in publishers. Others who felt disappointed slowed down in their Christian activity for a while. What statement about the main reason of decrease is more accurate? “apostate influence”, “self-generated expectations” or some statements in our literature.
·        (1 Sa 15:20,21) “However, Saul said to Samuel: […] But the people took sheep and cattle from the spoil, the best of what was devoted to destruction, to sacrifice to Jehovah your God at Gilgal” Saul, in other words, said “the mistake wasn’t mine, but people’s”. In modern times, “we have not guilty to promote false expectations, some individuals here and there have misunderstood us.” Was Saul humble?
Also, recently we have read in the W that in 1918 the ZWT followed the petition for “pray for peace”. but the original sources show, instead, that ZWT asked the congregations to pray for United States victory (w67 2/15 pp. 111-112 pars. 27-28), “for the promised glorious outcome of the war.” In this way presenting a more favorable view of the error.
TO PROTECT THE BROTHERHOOD
·        (2 Co 11:2) “For I am jealous over you with a godly jealousy, for I personally promised you in marriage to one husband that I might present you as a chaste virgin to the Christ.” ·        (2 Co 11:18) “Since many are boasting according to the flesh, I too will boast.” ·        (2 Co 12:11) “I have become unreasonable. You compelled me to, for I ought to have been recommended by you” As Paul with the Corinthians, the GB ‘is jealous over us’ because they want that the entire brotherhood be acceptable at God’s eyes. I think this is one of the reasons they are acting in a way with apparently lack of humility. Paul himself had to boast, be unreasonable, with lack of humility to reaffirm his authority. He made a display of credentials hoping the Corinthians would respect more and, consequently will follow his advice more confidently, for their own protection and spiritual well-being.
GOD CAN WRITE STRAIGH EVEN WITH CROOKED LINES
I’ve been personal witness of this situation: A body of elders had an obvious lack of judgment decision about a brother. This, humbly, didn’t protest. But his wife couldn’t endure the situation and talked with the elders. They recognized the error but replied to her: “in this way he’s receiving training from God” and the mistake was not corrected.
The attitude of the elders was: “well, God can act so that our errors turn out not to be such mistakes”.
Every one of us have read such things as “the brothers [some apparent mistake] but finally Jehovah [solved the situation].” And I believe this has been the case a lot of times, but this idea has led to us to think that the Organization, the GB, is in someway infallible. “What mistakes, if finally Jehovah turn out them in successes.”
ADULATION
I’ve attended three pioneer schools. The first one perhaps in 1979. In the first two of them the text book was given to the students at Sunday, the day before the beginning of the course. In such schools the normal situation for a lot of us is to remain awaken until well late at night to prepare all the information. During the classes many were sleepy, some of them anxious. This situation prevented us to fully enjoy.
Nevertheless, in my last school the book was provided a couple of months before! We all could prepare with sufficient time, only reviewing the lessons the day before each class. What a difference!
The intriguing is, how could happen that something so easy to perceive was not corrected until decades later? Did the instructors inform about what was evident? Did the branches inform to GB about the instructors complaints, if any? This real conversation perhaps gives some light.
A sister asking to the instructor: “why we couldn’t have the books with sufficient time”? Instructor answer: “because an equalizing. If you, for your circumstances, have much more time to prepare than other brother this would not be fair. In this way everyone will start at the same time, Sunday.” Crazy answer, isn’t it? But this kind of view was transmitted to the persons on charge. No mistake, for decades. Finally, sanity has been imposed.
And what was the reason for this kind of favorable report? Adulation. And I have more evidences. In my branch and in our headquarters. Many brothers are afraid to escalate the complains they have because in this way perhaps might seem negative. Only escalate favorable reactions. Yes, I’m sure not always is the situation. But I have evidence of too many.
Certainly all of us have seen good changes in the brothers leading the worldwide congregation. Let God bless the GB that this brothers with such enormous responsibility each day. Keep it that way!
You're right.
To avoid this post woud be marked as R-Rated, perhaps we should move to another more "spiritual" matter!

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?
 

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?
 

*** W16 8/15 page 15, pf 8. “Although the Bible does not provide specific rules about the kinds and limits of love play that might be associated with natural sexual intimacy, it mentions displays of affection. (Song of Sol. 1:2; 2:6) Christian marriage partners should treat each other with tenderness.”
 
Hi Comfort, re the above, I appreciate your mentioning these things difficult subjects as you have successfully done before; communications on these things is necessary, so don’t give up. (It is like discussing sex with your pre-teens, unpleasant to some people but it is necessary.) However, please note this reference says “natural” sexual intimacy. I believe people should understand the Bible and the spirit behind God’s laws, as well as perceiving that the will of God is when it is not spelled out. So I beg to disagree with you here. In fact I like what was written before time and which has not been mentioned much recently. For this reason I continue to believe what I see here in “True peace and Security – How Can You Find it”.
 
*** tp chap. 13 pp. 149-151 Your View of Sex—What Difference Does It Make? ***
Wisely Avoiding All Uncleanness and Sexual Greed
17 Sexual relations plainly have a proper place in the lives of married persons. God provided this as the means by which children would be produced, and also as a source of pleasure to the parents. (Genesis 9:1; Proverbs 5:18, 19; 1 Corinthians 7:3-5) Nevertheless, he warned against abusing this gift.—Ephesians 5:5.
18 Because of the emphasis placed on sex today, many young folks find that their desire for sexual satisfaction is aroused even before they are in position to marry. As a result, some of them seek pleasure through self-stimulation of their sexual parts. This is masturbation, or self-abuse. Is it a proper or wise practice?
19 The Scriptures counsel: “Deaden, therefore, your body members that are upon the earth as respects fornication, uncleanness, sexual appetite, hurtful desire, and covetousness.” (Colossians 3:5) Is one who practices masturbation ‘deadening his body members as respects sexual appetite’? On the contrary, he is stimulating the sexual appetite. The Bible urges that one avoid the thinking and conduct that lead to such problems, replacing them with wholesome activity, and that one cultivate self-control. (Philippians 4:8; Galatians 5:22, 23) When earnest effort is put forth to do this, such self-abuse can be avoided, with benefits mentally, emotionally, and spiritually.
20 What the Bible says respecting “uncleanness, sexual appetite, hurtful desire” applies to all Christians, single and married. 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. (2 Peter 1:5-8) The inspired Bible writer did not have to explain the natural way in which the reproductive organs of husband and wife complement each other. Homosexual relations obviously cannot follow this natural way. So, male and female homosexuals employ other forms of intercourse in what the apostle refers to as “disgraceful sexual appetites” and “obscene” practices. (Romans 1:24-32) Could married couples imitate such homosexual forms of intercourse in their own marriage and still be free in God’s eyes from expressing “disgraceful sexual appetites” or “hurtful desire”?
21 On considering what the Scriptures say, a person may realize that his former thinking on these matters was molded by those who are, as the Bible says, “past all moral sense.” But, with God’s help, one can “put on the new personality,” which is molded in accord with God’s standards of righteousness. (Ephesians 4:17-24) In this way a person shows that he truly means it when he says that he wants to do God’s will. Your View Vitally Affects Your Peace and Security
22 Applying the counsel of God’s Word as respects sexual morality is not burdensome. Contrast the fruitage of the course the Bible outlines with the world’s high rate of divorce, broken homes, delinquent children, prostitution, disease, and the violence and murders committed in connection with sexual passion. (Proverbs 7:10, 25-27) How evident the wisdom of God’s Word! When you reject worldly thinking based on selfish desire and bring your thinking into harmony with Jehovah’s counsel, your heart is greatly strengthened in right desires. Instead of fleeting pleasures of sexual immorality, you enjoy a clean conscience and enduring peace of mind. Marriage and family ties are fortified with the growth of mutual trust between marriage mates and with respect from the children.
23 And do not lose sight of the fact that your very hope of eternal life is involved. So Scriptural morality will contribute to more than your present health. (Proverbs 5:3-11) It will become part of the evidence that you truly deplore the detestable things done by people who have no regard for God and that you have been ‘marked’ for survival into God’s “new earth,” where, not immorality, but righteousness is to dwell. How vital, then, that you ‘do your utmost now to be found finally by God spotless and unblemished and in peace.’—Ezekiel 9:4-6; 2 Peter 3:11-14. Further, I think the will of God in these things can be perceived and it is not left up to the persons in their bedroom to do what they wish. Servants of God are always in God’s view and presence. I think these scriptures bear on the topic.
(Ephesians 5:17) On this account stop being unreasonable, but keep perceiving what the will of Jehovah is.
God’s will can be perceived when we get to know him well from studying the things he says he likes and the things he says he hates.
(Proverbs 3:5, 6) Trust in Jehovah with all your heart, And do not rely on your own understanding. 6 In all your ways take notice of him, And he will make your paths straight.
(Jude 7) . . .. 7 In the same manner, Sodʹom and Go•morʹrah and the cities around them also gave themselves over to gross sexual immorality and pursued unnatural fleshly desires; they are placed before us as a warning example by undergoing the judicial punishment of everlasting fire.
If he can see our heart and know our thinking, he surely is interested in everything we do – so nothing is out of his range. In all our ways we should take notice of what he wants us to do (bedroom included). We should like the things he likes, and hate the things he hates. Proper view would not come overnight but we can work on it as a work in progress. We will get there. For example, if we are diagnosed with a common disease such as diabetes, hypertension, etc., we don’t go along as usual if we wish a cure or have it under control, we amend our regimen, more exercise, proper diet, less salt, etc. Because we might like certain foods, that does not mean that we can’t forego them so we can have better health. God expects us to give up things that we once did that were part of this world’s darkness so as to have his friendship.
On the matter of the “harm” that is done to couples who desisted from practicing them after coming into the truth, that could be said for also refusing to take blood or obedience to other Godly requirements. We took up our torture stake and agreed to suffer to be friends with God. Anyway, God says he is teaching us to benefit ourselves.
==========
On the matter of the Royal Commission, this showed up a lot of deficiencies, many of which were well itemized in your post. Hope these would be handled better from now on. Recently a letter was read emphasizing that matters of child abuse should be reported to the authorities.

Melinda, as always, your commentaries are very welcome. Too, your words reflect good reasoning, scriptural and wise.

The only issue is, in my opinion, is when we apply uncleanness to certain practices or we refer to a particular conduct as “normal.” When I’ve dealt about these matters with other people, and they ask me about reasons, or proof that some particular behavior fits into “disgraceful”, I can’t answer with my personal views, nor our literature. I need to use the Bible, only the Bible.

The 1973 tp book paragraph you’ve quoted:

·        The inspired Bible writer did not have to explain the natural way in which the reproductive organs of husband and wife complement each other. Homosexual relations obviously cannot follow this natural way. So, male and female homosexuals employ other forms of intercourse in what the apostle refers to as “disgraceful sexual appetites” and “obscene” practices. (Romans 1:24-32) Could married couples imitate such homosexual forms of intercourse in their own marriage and still be free in God’s eyes from expressing “disgraceful sexual appetites” or “hurtful desire”?
It is modified for this posterior explanation:

·        *** w78 2/15 pp. 30-32 Questions From Readers ***[Footnotes] Reference has been made to the apostle’s statements at Romans 1:24-27 regarding “the natural use” of male and female bodies. As is evident and has been consistently acknowledged, these statements are made in the context of homosexuality. They do not make any direct reference to sexual practices by husband and wife. It must also be acknowledged that even those love expressions that are completely normal and common between husband and wife would be “unnatural” for persons of the same sex and immoral for unmarried people. Whatever guidance these apostolic statements provide as regards sex practices within marriage, therefore, is indirect and must be viewed as only of a persuasive but not a conclusive nature, that is, not the basis for setting up hard and fast standards for judgment. At the same time there is the possibility and perhaps a likelihood that some sex practices now engaged in by husband and wife were originally practiced only by homosexuals. If this should be the case, then certainly this would give these practices at least an unsavory origin. So the matter is not one to be lightly dismissed by the conscientious Christian simply because no direct reference to married persons appears in the aforementioned texts.
I see in the above quote three ideas.

First. Paul’s word regarding “natural” were about having sex between one man and one woman. This was the “natural.” We should not extrapolate to some practices between a married couple.
Second. A “simple” kiss between homosexuals is “unnatural”
Third. When the footnote mention the possibility-likelihood that some practices were originally practiced only by homosexuals, the writer is emitting an opinion. You see, no scripture sustains this affirmation.  Homosexuals also kiss and hug each other, and not for this reason should avoid the matrimonies kissing and hugging in our relationship.
I’m afraid regarding this matter of “proper” sexual behavior between the matrimony is happening something similar when we refused the transplants as a form of cannibalism. We “charged” excessively the meaning of some verse, in this case, Gen 9:2-4. I reproduce next paragraphs:

·        *** w67 11/15 p. 702 Questions From Readers *** When Jehovah for the first time allowed humans to eat animal flesh, he explained matters this way to Noah: “A fear of you and a terror of you will continue upon every living creature of the earth and upon every flying creature of the heavens, upon everything that goes moving on the ground, and upon all the fishes of the sea. Into your hand they are now given. Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to you. Only flesh with its soul—its blood—you must not eat.” (Gen. 9:2-4) That allowance was made to Noah, from whom every person now alive descended. Hence, it applies to all of us. Humans were allowed by God to eat animal flesh and to sustain their human lives by taking the lives of animals, though they were not permitted to eat blood. Did this include eating human flesh, sustaining one’s life by means of the body or part of the body of another human, alive or dead? No! That would be cannibalism, a practice abhorrent to all civilized people. Jehovah clearly made a distinction between the lives of animals and the lives of humans, mankind being created in God’s image, with his qualities. (Gen. 1:27) This distinction is evident in His next words. God proceeded to show that man’s life is sacred and is not to be taken at will, as may be done with the animals to be used for food. To show disrespect for the sanctity of human life would make one liable to have his own life taken.—Gen. 9:5, 6.
As we see, the writer of the article quotes Genesis with a basic idea: God allowed humans eating animal flesh. Now, the verse is “charged”: so, as no mention about eating human flesh in the verses, this is abhorrent and forbidden. But this idea, in spite all sane people agree with, is not scriptural.

Thus, years later was a “discharge” of the meaning of Genesis.

·        *** w80 3/15 p. 31 Questions From Readers *** Some Christians might feel that taking into their bodies any tissue or body part from another human is cannibalistic. […] They might not see it as fundamentally different from consuming flesh through the mouth. Such feelings may arise from considering that God did not make specific provision for man to eat the flesh of his fellowman when he made provision for humans to eat the flesh of animals [this was our former view, the “charged verse”] […] Other sincere Christians today may feel that the Bible does not definitely rule out medical transplants of human organs. […] It may be argued, too, that organ transplants are different from cannibalism since the “donor” is not killed to supply food. […]  While the Bible specifically forbids consuming blood, there is no Biblical command pointedly forbidding the taking in of other human tissue. For this reason, each individual faced with making a decision on this matter should carefully and prayerfully weigh matters and then decide conscientiously what he or she could or could not do before God. It is a matter for personal decision. (Gal. 6:5) The congregation judicial committee would not take disciplinary action if someone accepted an organ transplant.
 

I love this kind of reasoning from the GB! I find it so humble! The Bible doesn’t directly mention this matter. The basic principle in Gen. is to eat animal flesh. Any derivation from the basic principle is up to each individual.

By the way, do you find horrible eating human flesh? Me too. But if someone allows be transplanted with an organ (eating this organ as we used to say) I respect his position. In the same way, perhaps you and I share the same view regarding the proper sexual behavior in our matrimonies, and we find disgusting some practices, right. But if other married couple opine in a different way I don’t see myself with the authority to “charge” some verses to make these persons view the matters as I see.

Melinda, I voted you favorably. We don’t share completely the same view, but your points are very valid and respectable!

Comfort, that reply was well written and I understood the reasoning - that it could be a conscience matter. Your language was excellent - I like the way you used "charge" and "discharge". I still don't subscribe to it but I appreciate your going to lengths to explain.

We're all a bunch of screwballs but somehow Jehovah makes it all work.
Or, as someone said, 'it's amazing what Jehovah does with what he's got to work with.
But Melinda Mills is not a screwball because she could have taken offense when I chose a wrong word and did not.

Witness. I find that your views reflect an intense desire that God’s will were done. It is easily perceived from your comments you don’t find the GB is in good standing in the eyes of God.
I can understand your fear, because Jesus himself pointed out this very possibility when he mentions the evil slave, the foolish virgins, the wicked slave and others. So, the possibility exits, other way, why this waste of time talking about something hypothetical with no meaning.
In spite of this, if this would happen, this is not my job to punish these brothers, to reveal against them. It would be a matter between the Master and them. I’ve identified God’s people. I belong to this people. This people has, logically, persons with authority, local (elders) and worldwide (GB). And there is scriptural base to obey these persons with Christian authority:
·        (Hebrews 13:17) “Be obedient to those who are taking the lead among you and be submissive, for they are keeping watch over you as those who will render an account, so that they may do this with joy and not with sighing, for this would be damaging to you.” Please, witness, take note of these ideas:
·        Some persons would lead the congregations ·        We should be obedient to them ·        Do always the leaders would be right? No, because they “will render an account”. This expression implies the possibility of success and error, otherwise the verse only would say “they will receive a reward” ·        The result if we aren’t obedient: damage! I have it clear. Our “core doctrines” as I like to say are wonderful. I’ve learnt the proper condition of dead persons and the hope of the resurrection. My neighbors believe in soul immortality and hell fire. I’ve learnt the correct relationship between Jesus and his father. Mi neighbors believe in Trinity. I believe in the future paradise. My neighbors believe God will destroy the Earth.
In my country had military conscription, but the teachings of the GB (based in the Bible) helped me to be neutral. I’ve faced some surgical interventions, and based in what I’ve learnt from GB I could keep respect to God’s law regarding blood.
Well, I have no time to write down a lot more of spiritual gems these brothers have helped me to discover, appreciate and live them.
Now, you mention some other teachings about the time of the end, 1914, the signal and so. Well, I don’t consider these doctrines are “core” or fundamentals. Paul himself made a difference about basic or “milk” doctrines and other more “advanced.”
See Witness, all teachings about the time of the end, I grant you the possibility that we, the JW, or the GB are completely wrong. But this would not change the basic and principal doctrine: to keep alert!
The former Bible Students keep alert in spite of very different beliefs that we have nowadays. If, in the future, all the “time of the end” understanding is changed, perfect! I hope so! I want so! But, believe me Witness, it would not change my life in the slightest. I would continue serving God with this people, under the GB trying to keep me alert.
 
 
 

I sucked it up and carried on.

I think the best thing to do is to go into same the costume shop to buy a less conspicuous fake beard, and then if he tries it again next week you can trade "barbs" with him. Last pun, I promise. Or perhaps he remembered that 'love covers a multitude of chins.' Oh wait, just one more, OK? Maybe he's making progress, and he no longer believes in "once shaved, always shaved."
Seriously, though....
You should take the time, of course, to understand his reasons. Perhaps something he saw or read triggered it. As I recall there were a lot of pictures of people discussing travel plans in that particular Watchtower Study, and travel experiences might be all he ever talks about all year. There is also a little picture of a man carrying a large stack of presents on page 22, and a reminder to have a sense of humor on page 23. Or perhaps he was trying to hide his Santa-sized stomach from his line of sight to avoid "setting the mind on the flesh" (see paragraph 10, for example, in the "middle" of Sunday's study, p.16). Or perhaps he misunderstood the opening of paragraph 13 when it said it was possible for a Christian to change, and he decided to change right there at his seat. 
I have to say that it is difficult to believe that a doppelganger for Friedrich Engels could actually engage himself as the catalyst for such a capitalistic enterprise.
 

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.

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.

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

According to today’s (2/12/2017) Watchtower study, "trying different types of wine, decorating the home, finding new clothing styles, making investments, planning vacation trips, and the like" are works of the flesh. They are not wrong in themselves. Some are even necessary to a degree, but "setting the mind on the flesh means death." (Romans 8:6)
They are like kids in the car – fine to have along as passengers. They belong. You have to turn around and yell at them once in a while, but that’s unavoidable – an accepted cost of having them along. They are just fine as passengers.
But you don’t put them in the driver’s seat, for they will run you into a tree or off a precipice every time.
***************
Tom Irregardless and Me   No Fake News But Plenty of Hogwash 

·       
 
I had precisely this exact fear. The same fear Elihu could have had when he replied to Job: (Job 33:12) “But you are not right in saying this.” The fear to be seen as an enemy, an opponent of the brothers leading the worldwide congregation, the GB (I’ve explain this before in this topic.)
Anna said this:
·       
 
Good point Anna. I trust in the GB (I think so). What I mean is that these are sincere brothers. Their errors aren’t deliberate, as if they were looking for some unspeakable selfish interests. By no means!
My ONLY point in this post is: I believe that, for several reasons, these brothers have behaved in a way which, APPARENTLY shows lack of humility.
First acknowledgment: Obviously, me, the person pointing this idea, I’m the perfect example of petulance and pride.
Second. If I am right, this attitude not only has caused, but STILL IS CAUSING problems and wounds to God’s people. You and I are witness of this.
Third. The situation presented as the above statement disturbs me, trouble me, disquiet me.
Four. My attitude, my approach I’ve already mention before {in this other topic from Anna}. I partly reproduce bellow:
·        Sometimes, I putted myself in the next situation.  I am one of the men following David when he was persecuted by Saul. Then I get shocked, the anointed of Jehovah I admire give a very strange order: “let’s kill all Nabal’s house.” I immediately think this is a terrible injustice but, I ride the horse with the other 400 and obey the anointed. What a relief when Abigail stops him! ·        Years later I’m serving in the army under Joab. Then, my general give me strange orders from the King: Uriah must be abandoned in the middle of the fight. I think: “what, this is a murder.” But, of course, the order comes from the king anointed by Jehovah, sure the king has more information than me. Perhaps Uriah is a traitor. I feel terribly wrong, but I obey.  
 
 
Do I still think the GB is spirit directed?
It depends of the meaning of the “GB is spirit directed.” Anna quote is completely real, sadly real:
·       
.
This is a fact. I’ve heard, probably you also: “the GB has more information, but not reveals it because is not the time.” In fact, I use to say there are three states of communication: normal (you and me). Inspired (Bible writers) and spirit-directed (some kind of intermediate).
But, if that was the case, the brothers overseeing the teaching would not have taught about the pyramids, 1925, 1975, vaccines and many other things the way they have done.
Then, how do I think the GB and God’s people are being directed by God’s spirit?
In a way different from Bible times, because this special way would cease! (1 Cor.13:8) “But if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away with… if there is {miraculous} knowledge, it will be done away with.” So, in what way?
·        (Daniel 11:33) “And those having insight among the people will impart understanding to the many” ·        (Daniel 12:9, 10) “Then he said: “Go, Daniel, because the words are to be kept secret and sealed up until the time of the end. Many will cleanse themselves and whiten themselves and will be refined. … but those having insight will understand” We can perceive:
·        There will be a people of persons who would be taught.
·        Some, between this people, would be in charge of teaching.
·        The mechanism! The way! Getting insight, acquiring knowledge.
·        Without error? No! it’ll be necessary to be refined, to be cleaned.
And, where fits into the painting God’s spirit?
Because God bless the study, to the degree that we let Him influence us. I explain this. Let’s supposed that one truth entrenched for God’s people is 1914. So entrenched that we try by all means to fit the rest of the scriptures to this idea. Will God force us to change our mind? Never, according the scriptures. Remember Daniel: “refined…insight”, not “flashes.”
Thus, God’s spirit directs us if we abandon any predefined, entrenched, favorite, beloved believing. If we try “by hook or by crook” to accommodate the scriptures to our “doctrinal corpus”, how can God give us “insight” without miraculously forcing us to this change?
God’s spirit guides His people to the extend His people allow this. And it is perfectly possible this people, inadvertently don’t allow Him to intervene. One more proof in this biography of brother Willi Diehl:
·        *** w91 11/1 p. 29  *** In May 1949, I informed headquarters in Bern that I planned to marry Marthe and that we desired to remain in full-time service. The reaction? No privileges other than regular pioneering. This we started in Biel, following our wedding in June 1949. I was not permitted to give talks, nor could we look for accommodations for delegates to a forthcoming assembly, even though we had been recommended by our circuit overseer for this privilege. Many no longer greeted us, treating us like disfellowshipped persons, even though we were pioneers. We knew, however, that getting married was not unscriptural, so we took refuge in prayer and put our trust in Jehovah. Actually, this treatment did not reflect the Society’s view. It was simply a result of the misapplication of organizational guidelines
Did God’s spirit guide the brothers in Switzerland? Yes, at which extend? To the extent that they allowed His influence.
What are some, in my opinion, harmful teachings we are holding?
Before, because the previous statement I see is “too strong”. Did the I Century GB cause some damage? Let’s take the counsel given to Paul about going to the temple (Acts 21)
·        *** w00 6/15 p. 14 par. 10 Honor the Ones Given Authority Over You *** […] Paul could have reasoned: ‘Those brothers previously instructed me to leave Jerusalem when my life was threatened. Now they want me to demonstrate in public that I respect the Mosaic Law. I’ve already written a letter to the Galatians advising them to keep free from observing the Law. If I go to the temple, others may misunderstand my action, thinking that I am compromising with those of the circumcised class.’ However, Paul evidently did not reason that way. […] The immediate result was that Paul had to be rescued from a Jewish mob, and he subsequently spent two years in prison. In the long term, God’s will was done. Paul witnessed before high officials in Caesarea and then was taken at government expense to Rome to witness before Caesar himself.
I think it’s evident that the immediate outcome was negative. Note the expression in the article: “in the long term.” Did Jesus direct the GB to take this decision, because in this way Paul would give so fine testimony? Or, rather, was it a mistake the GB made but, instead, Christ took advantage of this, in other words, modify the outcome? Let the Bible answer us:
·        (James 1:13) “When under trial, let no one say: “I am being tried by God.” For with evil things God … nor does he himself try anyone”
As it’s very hard for me to write in English, I am only going to enumerate these harmful (in my opinion) teachings. Grant me some time and reflection to explain later. Perhaps some of you wish to point out the order to start explaining.
·        Our dealings with disfellowshipped close relatives
·        Our view about sexual behavior between spouses
·        Our policy about child abuse.
I’m close-up witness about the pain our “tradition” has caused. Will God’s spirit help us to modify, if necessary these views? Yes! To the extent that we allow Him to remove our trenched ideas.
Final: before you consider I’m one of the camouflaged apostates over there. In spite of all my doubts, in spite of my disagreements, I OBEY.

Comfort, you have some excellent illustrations in here also. Like the one personifying a conscientious God-fearing soldier in the matter of King David's order to kill Nabal's household and the one about King David's order via Joab to murder Uriah.
I want to add my two cents to this: "However, Paul evidently did not reason that way. […] The immediate result was that Paul had to be rescued from a Jewish mob, and he subsequently spent two years in prison. In the long term, God’s will was done. Paul witnessed before high officials in Caesarea and then was taken at government expense to Rome to witness before Caesar himself." -- ComfortMyPeople
 
I remember in the ’70s a district overseer saying at a district assembly that God can bless mistakes. I never forgot this statement and I have also proven him to be right. He said sometimes we too much of these matters. And he brought the example of a group working a territory together. Somebody misunderstood the directions and ventured into a territory that was not allocated to be worked that day. However, the person not only enjoyed meeting an interested person but a Bible study ensued. So there was truth in that. Other cases were reported or experienced by many of us. God's hand is not cut short, and he can see our desire to obey him despite our imperfections. So he can maneuver things to bring blessings, nevertheless. That's why we can be more mild-tempered and overlook things and give the person the benefit of good motive, though imperfection was manifested.
 
I agree with you that faulty decisions are not from God, but it is his work and he only has imperfect humans down here now, so he can maneuver things to further his purpose, as in the case with Paul getting further opportunities to preach before kings. Nothing is impossible with Him.
"(Acts 9:15, 16) 15 But the Lord said to him: “Go! because this man is a chosen vessel to me to bear my name to the nations as well as to kings and the sons of Israel. 16 For I will show him plainly how many things he must suffer for my name.”
 
I think this incident with Jesus' disciples fits in somewhere too.
People will not always do things our way but they can still be working with Jehovah and Jesus (“little ones who have faith”). So we don’t have to try to control them. We have to be peaceable, as nothing progresses without peace.
(Mark 9:38-42) 38 "John said to him: “Teacher, we saw someone expelling demons by using your name, and we tried to prevent him, because he was not following us.” 39 But Jesus said: “Do not try to prevent him, for there is no one who will do a powerful work on the basis of my name who will quickly be able to say anything bad about me. 40 For whoever is not against us is for us. 41 And whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ, I tell you truly, he will by no means lose his reward. 42 But whoever stumbles one of these little ones who have faith, it would be better for him if a millstone that is turned by a donkey were put around his neck and he were pitched into the sea."
 
Compare Jesus’ attitude to that of humans. He is not threatened; he is confident and peaceful.

This is an excellent point, and one we lose sight of now and then. I recall seeing a post over on jw-archive.org where someone insisted that it was a good thing that so many "little ones" stumbled over 1975. They were just being tested and found wanting. Therefore it was a good thing that there was so much talk about 1975 (or "the 1970's," or the final years of "this generation," or the preaching work that would be completed in the "20th century").
You brought up Brother Willi Diehl's experience from the 1991 Watchtower:
*** w91 11/1 p. 29 ‘Jehovah Is My God, in Whom I Will Trust’ ***
In May 1949, I informed headquarters in Bern that I planned to marry Marthe and that we desired to remain in full-time service. The reaction? No privileges other than regular pioneering. This we started in Biel, following our wedding in June 1949. I was not permitted to give talks, nor could we look for accommodations for delegates to a forthcoming assembly, even though we had been recommended by our circuit overseer for this privilege. Many no longer greeted us, treating us like disfellowshipped persons, even though we were pioneers.
We knew, however, that getting married was not unscriptural, so we took refuge in prayer and put our trust in Jehovah. Actually, this treatment did not reflect the Society’s view.
I don't know exactly what the Society's view was in 1949 in Switzerland, but one can still easily trace the where the idea came from. Full-time service (while married) was only available to pioneers (including missionaries) in 1949. If you got married you were showing that you were not serious about full-time service. This is why, in general, no one would get married at Bethel (and be allowed to stay) until Brother Knorr married Audrey Mock in 1953. (Audrey was actually engaged to Brother Richard Wheelock who would have been one of the first, if he had been allowed to stay at Bethel, but Brother Knorr made him break off the engagement, and then married her himself.) 
*** w04 7/1 p. 26 A Satisfying Life Despite Heartaches ***
Since the 1920’s, Bethelites who desired to marry had been required to leave Bethel and serve Kingdom interests elsewhere. But in the early 1950’s, a few couples who had served at Bethel for some time were allowed to marry and stay. So when Nathan H. Knorr, who at the time was taking the lead in the worldwide Kingdom work, showed an interest in me, I thought, ‘Now, here is someone who will stay!’
In the 1960's and 1970's it was still quite common in my Missouri congregation for the old-timers to quote the infamous old line that Rutherford had used in a talk at the St. Louis assembly, directed primarily to 15,000 children sitting together out on the grounds instead of in the regular arena seats. Here it is:
*** w41 9/15 p. 287 'Theocratic Assembly at St. Louis' ***
The "sheep" will inherit on earth the blessings of the Kingdom. . . . They shall be children of the King, and he will be their King-Father. . . .Then the divine mandate shall be carried out, to fill the earth with a righteous, perfect offspring, and this by marriage and childbearing. . . . "Why, then, should a man who has the prospect before him of being of the great multitude now tie himself up to a stack of bones and a hank of hair?" (Applause) . . . "Soon you will see Barak and Deborah (I got a picture of her in this book), and when you see her you will love her very much. She is a real woman, and will be able to give you girls proper advice, you girls who are looking for a husband. When you see Daniel, David, Moses and all the prophets, listen to what they have to say, and they will properly advise you boys and girls.
This was the attitude toward marriage among regular publishers. Imagine what it was like toward those chosen for full-time service! Over the previous 10 years, some awful things were being said about marriage and courtship and family relationships. "Having no natural affection" had become a kind of requirement if you wanted to show you were serious and spiritually mature. Dating and courtship was considered an "offense" to long-time Witnesses, although it began quickly changing among new ones being baptized. My own father wasn't even allowed to date until Knorr got married in 1953, and then he was immediately allowed to date for the first time, and my parents then married in January 31, 1954, exactly one year after Nathan and Audrey Knorr married on January 31, 1953. (And of course, if you did marry, you could not have children if you desired to ever go into the circuit work, as others in my family of that generation had done.)
A lot of this type of slightly warped thinking remained at Bethel for at least another decade. Note:
*** w61 12/15 p. 767 Questions From Readers ***
How can girls guard against temptation in this sex-crazy world?
When a girl reaches the age of puberty or physical maturity, her body has developed in the matter of sex more than in the mind. . . . However, the time will come when there will be great danger in such actions. Why? In answer to this question, we can learn about nature and sex from the bovine family of mammals, both wild and tame.
Large herds of cattle, both male and female, wander over the plains feeding. Ordinarily the male or bull would not think of approaching the female or cow for sex purposes. If he did approach he would not receive a hearty welcome, but, rather, he might be gored by the cow’s horns. There is no petting or sex relations between bull and cow permitted, because the female is not in physical condition to breed. The bull seems to understand this and keeps in his own place. However, when the female of the species is in condition to breed, she makes the matter known. If there is no male in the herd, she will go elsewhere looking for one and she is unsettled until she finds one and then is bred by him. Now she is contented, and the end result is a calf. In this connection it is interesting to note that the male animal has no season at which he is not willing to engage in the breeding act. If we humans would take a lesson from these creatures, we would learn something of importance in matters of sex, as to its purpose and the results of its operation.
As with a cow, when a young girl who has reached her puberty is in physical condition to conceive and become pregnant, her sex emotions are greatly aroused. . . . If the boy friend should become sexually aroused and lets her know it and then she yields her body to the advances of the amorous boy friend, she is likely to become pregnant as a result of just one sex experience of this kind.
It's just an opinion, but I think that the type of "divisions" we should be more worried about than doctrines in the congregation are these types of differences that lead to judging others. The brother (Diehl) who married was judged as if he was worthy of being disfellowshipped. When the Bible speaks of divisions in the congregation it's often about how we tend to judge others. (James chapter 2)
Also, I don't think that these things from the 1950's and 1960's are worth troubling ourselves over. At this point the experience might be almost humorous to us, although at the time it resulted in people sacrificing their opportunity to have children, or even a spouse. But no one held a gun to their head, and Christians have faith that Jehovah can make up for all physical losses. But it doesn't show love to trouble our brothers with unnecessary legalism like this. All we can do now, is to remember the experience so that we apply principles learned to any new decisions. There are definitely still people at Bethel, even now, who feel they are somehow more righteous and spiritually mature for having given up their opportunities for marriage and children. So we should always be on the watch for attitudes of self-righteousness and superiority. It's just one way in which we, as faithful servants, might start "beating" our fellow servants.

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.....

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.....

A very good digest, Ann.

I remember Armageddon Ernie!!!
It must be wonderful to go in field service with you!
Why do you keep trying to defend something which the GB have themselves admitted as being a mistake on their part?

It's been very interesting following Eoin and JWInsider's conversation, and some insightful thoughts from Comfortmypeople. All raised some good and valid points. This topic is probably exhausted, (and some new ones started) but I would just like to express a few thoughts. It seems clear that there is no doubt that oversight and leadership is inevitable and necessary in order for an international organization like ours to stay united in the same mind and in the same line of thought (1 Cor 1:10) otherwise we would be no different to Christendom. To believe that each congregation should be autonomous (as some opposers have suggested) is foolish because this would never work. Although congregations have their own unique personality and chemistry, the teachings are always the same. It is remarkable really, that you can travel halfway across the world and end up with same lessons like at home, just in a different language. So I would say the question isn't so much in the shepherding i.e. the organizational structure, but rather in the interpretation of scripture. Are we to follow the interpretation of scripture of a body of men, even though we know this interpretation might not be correct? This was the main thought I was trying to raise, and indeed this is one of the biggest bones of contention with our opposers, as we know.... It is understandable if we take it at face value; why should some men dictate what we are to believe?  Or why should we believe what some men are telling us to believe? Especially if we know they can err, just like any one of us can err. And we can also see where they have erred, partially by their own admission and partially from experience. JWInsider touched on this subject a number of times and brought out that this (relying exclusively and unconditionally on the words of the GB) would actually be unscriptural.  Is it not the responsibility of each Christian to make sure that they are in line with the scriptures as far as we can understand them and in the most core and fundamental areas? (make sure of all things) Do we need to have the scriptures partially digested for us and then spoon fed? Didn’t Paul say we should grow in spiritual maturity and eat solid food?  In fact we would be foolish if we were to take every utterance by the GB/Slave as “gospel truth”. But is there really a problem with that? “Witness” tried to suggest instances where the GB/Slave have caused damage by what they said. (and Comfortmypeople has mentioned some in his new topic). It’s easy to point a finger, but is there any substance to that claim, besides mere opinion? In my many years as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses I have not had any reason to be distrustful of the GB. What did change though was that as the years have gone by, I have developed a more balanced and reasonable attitude towards them.  My main issue I guess is what Comfortmypeople brings out in this topic so I will just move over there and see where it's going...