TrueTomHarley

Use of the word 'most' is subjective - I do not think it is 'most' - though it is certainly true anywhere that new ones do not know as much as older ones. It's not just in the field of religion. It is everywhere.
GB counsel doesn't encourage people to be shallow. It encourages them to go deep. But people do that at their own pace and sometimes not at all. You don't have to be a theocratic Rhode's scholar to be baptized - you just have to know and agree with the basics. Surely the fact that you cannot (usually) get baptized for close to a year should allay your concern - unless that concern is unallayable.
This is also subjective, and I do not agree with it. I suspect there are some concerns that are important in your eyes that most Witnesses do not know much of, but that is not the same thing.
But this is quibbling. You're main concern i'll speak to later. Unfortunately, I am in and out. A five minute comment I can make anytime, but if there is something that deserves more thought, I want to give it that thought. Start a separate thread on it. Seriously. It's a subject in its own right, and this thread is on something else. The threadmeister can always yank it back on topic and there will be nothing you or I can do about it.
Having said that, I've been known to hijack a thread or two in my tenure.

No offence, BR, but whether directed to me or to him, it hardly seems appropriate.

In that case do not say "believe whatever you want, I don't care." It is misleading.
They are not so 'high control' as you imagine. There is little damage done that cannot be done provided one is not determined to saw off the limb one is sitting on. Set yourself to undo it.

For someone who says 'believe whatever you want I don't care,' you sure do seem to care a lot.

Perhaps it is as you say about separation of powers, but I suspect you are overthinking this. It is better if you do not.
Search the scriptures for how many indicate submission to a human authority is a good thing. Contrast that with how many indicate congregational authority is a thing that we can accept or reject as we see fit.. 
I think you will find the first vastly outnumber the second.
Of course, the exact methods will always be arguable. So if there is something you absolutely cannot abide, find the faith that is doing a preaching work comparable to Witnesses and go there. Otherwise, remain here - support what you can, sit out what you cannot. Look for what is good, cut slack for what seems lacking, and allow yourself to be taught by Jehovah.

What is happening to my eyes?

Spill the beans on me and I'll cut off your water supply and make you gift-wrap your own excrement and urine, just like Rabshekah threatened the Israelites 

Speechless......SMH.....
Throws his papers up in the air......
I need a drink.

Sheol? I know that, although you call yourself a Virginian, you live near the Canadian border in Rochester, but Sheol is in Alberta, Canada not far from the Pope and the Devil, and a lake that I think is a shortened form of Lake Lucifer.

Are you sure you weren't in Hell, Michigan?

On an even more important note, I just noticed that Google says the Area Code for Hell is 734.

Don't know if that fact will ever come in handy, but I know it's going to be easy to remember because if you type in "734" on a calculator and turn it upside down, it spells"HEL" although "7734" is better:

Oh the things we will learn, the places we will go!  Might want to pass this bit of trivia on to Vic if you see him.
The Librarian will probably take away my new privileges for this, but what the .... what the ... hay.

Might be for the best. Sometimes we get wrapped up in the idea that 1 Peter 3:15 means that we must use logic and reasoning to make a defense:
(1 Peter 3:15) . . .always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason for the hope you have, but doing so with a mild temper and deep respect. But sometimes the best defense is a good offense. (I forgot the scripture citation.) And by that I mean that it's our proactive life of "living the good news" and "living the hope" as it were, which shows up in our conduct. In fact the very next idea in context is:
(1 Peter 3:16, 17) 16 Maintain a good conscience, so that in whatever way you are spoken against, those who speak against you may be put to shame because of your good conduct as followers of Christ. 17 For it is better to suffer because you are doing good,. . . The best way to defend our hope and faith is through our good conduct.

This question is better left to others who will discuss it at greater length and with at least as much success.
Not everyone has to weigh in on everything. What - I should spend a few hours online and assume equal weight with the GB?

While we read of some prophets in the first century (how many were there?) they have no role in the circumcision ruling of Acts 15 - which was conveyed to all congregations as a decree. Past prophets were considered (Amos and Isaiah), witnesses were heard (most notably Peter, Paul and Barnabas) but there is no mention of contemporary prophets.
Possibly those who bellyached and refused to heed the decision did so on that account - that the then-prophets were ignored! and what right did the elders and apostles have to ignore the prophets?!! Surely those who scream bloody murder at GB decisions today would have screamed bloody murder back then.
Telling to me is the identification of who was acting as restraint to apostasy back then. It was the apostles themselves. The minute they died, it was as if the chorus rang out among the malcontents: "Ding Dong, the Witch is Dead." The 'elders' of the Acts 15 "apostles and elders" were not enough to hold back the rebels. What those rebels didn't dare do when the apostles were around, they did with impunity with their successors.
If apostasy could spin out of control the instant the apostles died, what possible chance does it have to not likewise overwhelm today. Plainly ones are pushing for that outcome with all their might. The only thing to thwart them - that they will not be able to prevail against no matter how hard they try - is the fact we are in harvest time now. 'Let the weeds grow along with the wheat until the harvest,' the Master told his workers. 'Come harvest time we'll bundle them up and toss them in the fire.'

While we read of some prophets in the first century (how many were there?) they have no role in the circumcision ruling of Acts 15 - which was conveyed to all congregations as a decree. Past prophets were considered (Amos and Isaiah), witnesses were heard (most notably Peter, Paul and Barnabas) but there is no mention of contemporary prophets.
Possibly those who bellyached and refused to heed the decision did so on that account - that the then-prophets were ignored! and what right did the elders and apostles have to ignore the prophets?!! Surely those who scream bloody murder at GB decisions today would have screamed bloody murder back then.
Telling to me is the identification of who was acting as restraint to apostasy back then. It was the apostles themselves. The minute they died, it was as if the chorus rang out among the malcontents: "Ding Dong, the Witch is Dead." The 'elders' of the Acts 15 "apostles and elders" were not enough to hold back the rebels. What those rebels didn't dare do when the apostles were around, they did with impunity with their successors.
If apostasy could spin out of control the instant the apostles died, what possible chance does it have to not likewise overwhelm today. Plainly ones are pushing for that outcome with all their might. The only thing to thwart them - that they will not be able to prevail against no matter how hard they try - is the fact we are in harvest time now. 'Let the weeds grow along with the wheat until the harvest,' the Master told his workers. 'Come harvest time we'll bundle them up and toss them in the fire.'

Absolutely. I have been lately communicating with an oaf who regularly launches vicious attacks at the Governing Body. He tipped his hand recently (IMO) to reveal his core difficulty - he thinks it is all about us. In fact, it is about the vindication of God's purposes and the sanctification of his name. Occasionally we take it on the chin as we yield to these greater things as the focus.
Having said that, I sometimes get discouraged that intellectual work is often misconstrued as  'showing off.' If I were an electrician, I would receive nothing but praise for developing that skill to the full. If I relished a certain electrically challenging project, no one would say I am being full of myself. Nobody would question my motive. Nobody would accuse me of attempting to stand out and achieve recognition to be admired by my peers. I will even concede that @Ann O'Malyhas a point in her carrying on about stifling talent - it is just that she takes a grain of truth and tries to bake it into a seven layer cake that I object to.
In my case, I write because I am not good at anything else. If someone should say - like @The Librarian -  'good writing!' of course I am pleased. But it is no different than a hands-on worker being commended for craftsmanship.
Jehovah's Witnesses are top-heavy with persons who work with their hands. Far from being a negative, this is added proof that Jehovah's Witnesses follow the pattern of first century Christianity. A carpenter is less likely to become too big for his pants than an educated statesman. Working class people came into the truth in droves back then - less so, the upper classes. It is exactly what one should expect. Nonetheless, it is not as though intellectual talent is a pejorative. Leave @JW Insider alone. Or at least, if you criticize him, as can arguably be done, do not do so in a way so as to imply that he is trying to outshine his brothers.
 

Presumably, this is also true of GB members, past & present.
One would think so. But that did not stop Korah and a whole bunch of others from doing it.
 
You have not even attempted to make the case - and I trust you won't go there - that the GB is leading people into false worship.

Presumably, this is also true of GB members, past & present.
One would think so. But that did not stop Korah and a whole bunch of others from doing it.
 
You have not even attempted to make the case - and I trust you won't go there - that the GB is leading people into false worship.

Since you're not suggesting the GB is on par with those corrupt leaders, the premise of your point collapses and the point along with it.
 
Yes. By another one of the leaders.
 
If we are to believe JWI, it happens all the time.
 
This tired bit of nonsense has been dealt with already. There was an entire thread about it.
 
You take a back seat in those instances. Nobody says you can't. It's when you try to grab the wheel that  trouble comes about.
@bruceq's verse is telling: They keep following the Lamb "no matter where he goes." In whose eyes? If it is each one following him no matter where he goes in his own eyes according to that one's own Bible-trained conscience, then some do one thing and some do another. The whole phrase becomes silly, and should be replaced with "each one did what was right in his own eyes."
Since you do not equate the GB with the corrupt, wicked kings, then the model of rebels in the congregation, be that Korah or Hymanaus, is the more appropriate. Further, since it is not corruption or wickedness you object to, then it becomes little more than a matter of style. You don't carry on and on over such things. You just sit out if you can't abide it. To not do so indicates that one really doesn't believe: "it's not about us - it's about God's purpose and the sanctification of his name." 
"It is about us" is the message that comes through loud and clear with the most chronic complainers

Since you're not suggesting the GB is on par with those corrupt leaders, the premise of your point collapses and the point along with it.
 
Yes. By another one of the leaders.
 
If we are to believe JWI, it happens all the time.
 
This tired bit of nonsense has been dealt with already. There was an entire thread about it.
 
You take a back seat in those instances. Nobody says you can't. It's when you try to grab the wheel that  trouble comes about.
@bruceq's verse is telling: They keep following the Lamb "no matter where he goes." In whose eyes? If it is each one following him no matter where he goes in his own eyes according to that one's own Bible-trained conscience, then some do one thing and some do another. The whole phrase becomes silly, and should be replaced with "each one did what was right in his own eyes."
Since you do not equate the GB with the corrupt, wicked kings, then the model of rebels in the congregation, be that Korah or Hymanaus, is the more appropriate. Further, since it is not corruption or wickedness you object to, then it becomes little more than a matter of style. You don't carry on and on over such things. You just sit out if you can't abide it. To not do so indicates that one really doesn't believe: "it's not about us - it's about God's purpose and the sanctification of his name." 
"It is about us" is the message that comes through loud and clear with the most chronic complainers

In the absence of human authority, when God says something you don't like, you simply interpret it away. 
No harm done.

In the absence of human authority, when God says something you don't like, you simply interpret it away. 
No harm done.

Nobody has any problem with God. It is always with his human organization.
This is true even with Judas. He and God were tight. But Jesus looked pretty human to him.

Nobody has any problem with God. It is always with his human organization.
This is true even with Judas. He and God were tight. But Jesus looked pretty human to him.

The first Governing Body did a fantastic job - but when we start looking at the incompetencies in the congregations etc.  (the issue with the bias regarding the feeding of the widows; the issues which arose regarding the circumcision, eating food previously offered to idols etc..)..another picture emerges.  These were all issues that were not immediately addressed and could have caused some distress in the congregations for a period of time.... until the matter was taken up with the GB or other solutions were found.    It was necessary for Paul to write letters and keep a watchful eye on new undesirable things in the congregations such as false teachings.  etc..
Today we have the same issues - nothing has changed concerning the desires of mankind and its endeavors.  To me the test is this:  when other churches come and challenge us with their scholarship - I look at what they are DOING on the ground.  Are THEY fulfilling the prophecy of Matt 24:14 - or are we?   Do they have a slave who is feeding the entire world free of charge - or are we?
So imperfect as we are - we are being obedient to Jehovah and doing the work he gave us to do - miraculously not by our own power.... even if everything is not perfect and needs constant work.

I think most of us first respond like Paul, who 'lost it' in Athens.
"While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he grew exasperated at the sight of the city full of idols. So he debated in the synagogue with the Jews and with the worshipers, and daily in the public square with whoever happened to be there."  Acts 17:16-17  NABRE
Why didn't he mind his own business? Because he became exasperated - wanting to tolerate no rivalry toward Jehovah.

I think that is the job that journalists should have, to uncover issues that need to be fixed. If it's not their job to fix it, then that should be left to someone else. Of course, I don't confuse CNN, MSNBC, FOX and nightly broadcast news with journalism, either.
Fuel for flamethrowers is always out there, whether some of it gets discussed here or not. But it's good for us to know what's true and what's exaggerated. When to duck and when to ignore. But we don't want to expose ourselves further by simply hiding our head in the sand. And we don't want to deny things that it is dishonest to deny.
I don't know about that. We all have defense mechanisms that just seem to rise up when we feel our comfort level threatened. Among each other, here, we may act one way, but we are better prepared for what we will see more and more of outside here. We are going to face more and more people who are info-savvy, even in our own congregations. (My own children found jwfacts before I did.) They will see direct evidence that something is true, ask us about it, and hear some of us deny that there is even a grain of truth to it. They might wonder what kind of "truth" this is. (My own mother will probably instinctively deny that Brother Jackson ever testified anywhere on "that" subject, for example.) Yet, if a transition toward more openness, realism, and truth is evident anywhere, even here, then it's a start toward healing ourselves of a pervasive pride of ignorance. When we truly make the truth our own, we will be better equipped to defend and emphasize the more important things, when someone brings up details about lesser things.
It's a better question that you might think. There was an "old guard" who were known to be very insular and clearly felt threatened by discussions. It's true that they literally thought that it was some kind of attack on them if groups of brothers and sisters were meeting together just to read and discuss the Bible reading without Society publications at their side at all times. I was there for the crackdown on such gatherings that had become popular from about 1975 to 1979 when the brothers handling morning worship were beginning to make statements that sounded paranoid. But most of these brothers had been life-long bureaucrats inside a Tower all their lives. But the "new crew" is mostly from circuit work, missionary work, with only a reasonable amount of branch level work. There are more married couples. We speak about how Jesus was taught by Jehovah and this includes the fact that he has lived as a natural human, has become "one of us." 
Compare: (Hebrews 5:1, 2) 5 For every high priest taken from among men is appointed in their behalf over the things relating to God, so that he may offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. 2 He is able to deal compassionately with the ignorant and erring ones, since he too is confronted with his own weakness, Compare: (James 5:17) 17 E·liʹjah was a man with feelings like ours. . .