Some say one thing, and some say something completely different

[Srecko Sostar]

19 minutes ago, Juan Rivera said:

@Srecko Sostar I've read a few comments from other Witnesses and it seems you already had this conversation elsewhere and in the closed club. I don't think your perspective that Geoffrey Jackson was claiming that they are not the only body in this world that can give valid doctrine when representing God as God's speaker of faith is accurate. Here's their comments:

Comment from JW "Rotherham":

"The literature never states that the FDS is the SOLE channel for dispensing truth, it says God’s organization IS. God’s organization includes everyone who would be considered a minister, man, woman or child. But the scriptures are clear that SOMEONE would be taking the LEAD when it comes to feeding the flock. That is what we believe to be the case with the FDS. So whereas MANY can feed and nourish, there are those who are leaders that Hebrews 13:17 says we should OBEY and SUBMIT to. So I don’t see where Br. Jackson’s comments are inaccurate."

Unfortunately or fortunately, I cannot influence how others perceive what GJ said before the ARC. Nor is it crucial that I have their conclusion or they have mine. Of course, it is good to hear another about how he understood something about what was said/written.
Regarding the statement of GB member GJ, I think my mind is clear enough to understand what was said there despite my poor knowledge of the English language. In the end, those whose native language is English also reason/conclude the same.

About said comment. Mr. or Mrs. "Rotherham" in the first sentence wrote an incorrect statement, totally. 

In short, I can say that the term Organization should be distinguished from the term FDS aka GB. "Organization" is a legal entity, registered under the law, that JWs use, so says your literature. The colloquial expression that exists in JWs culture and terminology, the term "organization" has an emotional meaning and includes mainly the entire Brotherhood, but also the Administration that "leads" that same Brotherhood.
The extraction from the term FDS comes from Jesus' illustration in Matthew's Gospel. Only in this century, perhaps in the span of some twenty, thirty years, the doctrine of who the FDS is started to be changed into the latest interpretation that the "Faithful and Discreet Slave" is none other than the Governing Body, and that they are the only ones who share the "spiritual food" they get from Jesus and YHVH. Let the aforementioned commenter and others who are still unclear about this, turn to "the new light" which illuminated JWs congregations in The Watchtower—Study Edition | July 2013.

Happy reading. :)) 

 

[Srecko Sostar]

1 hour ago, Juan Rivera said:

@Srecko Sostar can you restate this comment, I'm having trouble understanding it after re-reading it a few times, sorry.

It would help if you pointed out what is just so unclear or is completely unclear. Thank you.

[Srecko Sostar]

1 hour ago, George88 said:

The real question is, who are these critics of the ones who are willing to criticize, and what makes their comprehension superior to those they are judging?

I can only speak of myself as a "critic", although I listen to and watch other "critics" on the Internet. I do not have any superiority, but I have moved from one to some other positions from which I can look at things.

[Juan Rivera]

9 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

It would help if you pointed out what is just so unclear or is completely unclear. Thank you.

Everything on the post😂 . Can you restate it in different wording, because I have no idea what you are saying in that specific post

[Juan Rivera]

On 10/27/2023 at 1:02 PM, Many Miles said:

Thanks for sharing that piece of video. I had not recollected that part, if I ever saw it at all. He gave quite a bit of testimony.

What he says does, as you suggest, stop short of saying that if JWs see something the society asserts as a belief is incorrect that they should then reject it as false; that in such a case the governing body should be accursed, to borrow Paul’s term to Galatia.

It’s noteworthy here that Jackson went on to say the governing body is the guardian of doctrine and beliefs hence it is the decision maker about interpreting what they Bible says. If it’s true that all JWs can read their Bible and know what is correct vs incorrect teaching, then why a need for interpretation by anyone?

Taken together, this is pretty circular. In essence he’s saying we can tell if what the governing body says is true based on what the Bible says, but the governing body is who has the final say about what the Bible says. If what the Bible says is what the governing body asserts it to say then what the governing body says is not falsifiable, which makes the notion useless in terms of rational thought.

So, on one hand it’s nice to see a contemporary governing body representative acknowledge that we can read our Bibles for ourselves to determine correctness of teaching, yet the same representative stops short of saying we should hold them as accursed if we find what they say is false. That’s the difference between what Paul did in writing Galatia compared with our contemporary governing body. At no point does our contemporary governing body say there is a point at which they should be rejected. Paul and the early apostles did that. The society does not.

@Many Miles @Srecko Sostar@George88 @JW Insider Let me know if you guys want to create a new post with this topic in mind (Galatians) here in the open forum or closed.

Here’s two comments. One made by a Jehovah’s Witness and another by a Catholic Philosopher that may shed some light:

Rotherham:

“The Watchtower has never addressed the idea as to what would happen if they apostatized because the notion is considered ridiculous. From what I know of them, I would agree. Going astray is a far cry from apostasy. The organization has been “astray” a number of times. That’s the very reason they change a certain view or teaching or policy, they were astray and they corrected it.

From their standpoint, the notion that they as the GB would apostatize is considered ridiculous. I am not sure why that seems to be such a problem to understand. They are dedicated to the pursuit of Biblical truth and are willing to change their views regardless of the consequences that the change may bring. 

Of course I never stated that such a thing would be impossible, I said it was considered ridiculous. The WT is a self-correcting organization with the Bible as the guideline. All JWs are admonished to let the scriptures be their main guide. The combination of the two would stand as a bulwark against the organization as a whole to fall into apostasy.

As I tried to get you to appreciate, the Bible is the first and foremost guide in a JWs life. Everything else is secondary to the Bible. Within the scriptures there are absolute statements and non-absolute statements. A clear apostate position would be to take a stand against an absolute statement offered in the Bible. I am sure you would agree that there are many. 

Ambiguity or non-absolutes naturally present a difficulty with a clear interpretation, such as prophecy and/or the understanding of certain parabolic features. But if a defined stand were to be made against absolute statements in the Bible, then the result is apostasy as I stated before. 

For instance, if the WT came out and stated that the scriptures are no longer considered inspired of God, that would be clear and defined stand against what the scriptures teach. That would be apostasy, and naturally any Bible believing Christian would walk away from an organization that would promote such and idea, and rightfully so.

Independent thinking is not prohibited in a some wholesale fashion as you seem to want to establish. The entire admonition against independent thinking is within the context of one entertaining and promoting teachings which are not accepted by the GB, who adhere strictly to the scriptures. As I stated, we certainly know that independent thinking is entirely necessary even for a person to live their life meaningfully and with a certain a natural, balanced autonomy. 

And yes, just as the teachings of the Apostles were adhered to in the first century, according to Eph 4:11-17, that same process of gifts of men would be followed until full understanding would be achieved. Teachers, prophets and evangelizers would continue the work of the Apostles that would be responsible for “perfecting/readjusting” the holy ones until that full-grown stature of the church is recognized.

The Bible takes precedent in any teaching within the JW congregations. If there were clear and unquestionable deviation from an established Biblical teaching, if that were maintained and not expeditiously corrected, they would lose God’s favor and be rejected as his earthly organization and God would establish another. Those who appreciate the Bible as the final word would follow as it would naturally result in a schism..

The WT is considered to be like the eyeglass that helps one understand the true teachings from God’s word. It is however, recognized as fallible. The scriptures, as far as they are translated properly, reflect the perfect word of God and the Bible is well known to be our primary textbook. It is infallible and takes full precedent in any understanding, teaching or practice. Therefore, with the Bible at the helm, your above contrived scenario is not an issue.

Although the organization is considered God’s arrangement, that would only be as long as they were devoted to the teachings of the Bible. Just as Israel was rejected for corruption, so could the WT. Israel was God’s nation but became corrupt to the point that God rejected them as a nation. Not individually but as a nation. Jesus told them that the kingdom of God would be taken from them and given to nation producing its fruits.

Those who adhere first to God’s Word would clearly see the reason for their rejection, but as I said, the notion is a purposeful contrivance on your part. The WT has proven faithful in changing as they discern error, as they should. They are lovers of truth and will change as the revelation and clarification of truth continues.This would be in harmony with the idea presented in the parable of the wheat and the weeds.

Besides, one can question what they will. The problem is not questions or doubts, it is the promoting of teachings against what has been accepted by the governing body. In the first century, that was the Apostles as all congregation adhered to the teachings of the Apostles. In the harvest it would be the FDS as mentioned in Matthew or the wheat as mentioned in the prophecy about the wheat and the weeds. Ephesians 4:11-17 would be in full support of that type of arrangement.

 

Edward Feser: 

Fathers have the authority to teach and discipline their children, but this authority is not absolute.  They may not teach their children to do evil, and they may not discipline them with unjust harshness.  Everyone knows this, though everyone also knows that there are fathers who do in fact abuse their children or teach them to do evil.  Everyone also knows that it is right for children under these unhappy circumstances to disobey and reprove their fathers, while still acknowledging their fathers’ authority in general and submitting to his lawful instructions.

All the same, probably no father ever says to his children: “Children, here’s what to do if I ever start to abuse you or teach you to do evil.”  The reason for this is surely that the default assumption is that children will never need to know what to do under such circumstances, and that explicitly addressing it in this way would give them a false and disturbing impression.  Children might start to wonder whether abuse or evil teaching is a likely prospect, and for that reason come to doubt their father’s wisdom and good will. 

Hence, in the typical case, what to do in such a situation is left implicit and vague.  The nature of paternal authority is such that this is the way things should be.  Because the presumption that fathers will not abuse their authority is so strong, and because children need to believe viscerally that this is extremely unlikely to happen, the matter almost never comes up in most families.  There is a downside, of course, which is that on those rare occasions when a father does abuse his authority, children are bound to be confused about how to deal with the situation.  What do you do when the man appointed by nature to be your primary teacher and guardian starts to mislead or harm you?

Now, the papacy is like this.  The Church has no official and explicitly stated policy about how to deal with a pope who teaches error or otherwise abuses his office.  That is not because such error and abuse are not possible.  On the contrary, not only has the Church always allowed for the possibility that a pope can teach error when not speaking ex cathedra and that he can make policy decisions that do grave harm to the faithful, but both of these things have in fact happened on a handful of occasions – for example, the doctrinal errors of Pope Honorius I and Pope John XXII, the ambiguous doctrinal formula temporarily accepted by Pope Liberius, the Cadaver Synod of Pope Stephen VI and its aftermath, and the mistakes of Pope Urban VI that contributed to the Great Western Schism.  (I have discussed these cases here, here, and here.)  

But there is in Catholic theology so strong a presumption against a pope making grave doctrinal and disciplinary errors that, as with a father in relation to his children, it would be potentially misleading and destabilizing explicitly to formulate a policy concerning what to in such a situation.  Hence you won’t find in the Catechism a section on what to do about a bad pope.  The very existence and expression of such a policy might give the false impression that bad popes are bound to arise with some regularity.  

The downside is that on those rare occasions when a bad pope does come along, the Church is bound to be flummoxed.  Many Catholics without theological expertise will wrongly suppose that a Catholic must absolutely always support any policy that a pope implements, or assent to any doctrinal statement that a pope issues – even when such a statement seems manifestly contrary to traditional teaching (as in the cases of Honorius I and John XXII).  This will lead to one of two outcomes, depending on the capacity of such ill-informed Catholics for cognitive dissonance. 

Those who are more prone to react emotionally and less capable of clear and logical reasoning – and thus who are comfortable with embracing contradictions – will tend to go along with the doctrinal or policy errors of such a pope.  Their own understanding and practice of the Faith is going to be impaired as a result.  They are also bound to sow discord in the Church, since they will likely accuse those Catholics who do not embrace the errors of disloyalty and dissent.  By contrast, those who cannot bear such cognitive dissonance are liable to have their faith shaken.  They will wrongly suppose that they are obliged to assent to the errors, but find that they are unable to do so given the manifest conflict with traditional teaching.  They will needlessly worry that this conflict between current and past teaching falsifies the Church’s claim to indefectibility. 

It is important, then, for Catholics to realize that the traditional teaching of the Church has always allowed for the possibility of criticism of a pope who teaches error.  Indeed, such an acknowledgment is there in the New Testament, in St. Paul’s famous public rebuke of St. Peter for conduct that “seemed to indicate a wish to compel the pagan converts to become Jews and accept circumcision and the Jewish law” (as the Catholic Encyclopedia characterizes Peter’s scandalous action).  

 

[Pudgy]

When I get something I don’t understand, I print it out on paper, then read it once fot the overall idea. I have ADD and tricky vision.

Then I read it again for detail, underlining and highlighting points, and making arrows over to the margins for notes. 

All during this I try to build a mental picture that makes sense. Visualizing a portrait with a smushed bug makes the problem obvious, so to speak.

Problematic syntax sentences can be diagrammed (which nobody teaches anymore) to determine exactly what is being actually said. Usually this is not what the author meant.

Sometimes I meditate and let the whole thing sit overnight, and read the text the next day.

I PAID to see “2001  -  A Space Odyssey“ nine times, because I didn’t “get it”. It wasn’t until I bought the Screenplay (book) and read it that I understood the movie.

Many times you can wrestle the secrets out of the Universe if you are willing to do the work, and never submit to not understanding.

[JW Insider]

45 minutes ago, Juan Rivera said:

@Many Miles @Srecko Sostar@George88 @JW Insider Let me know if you guys want to create a new post with this topic in mind (Galatians) here in the open forum or closed.

I would participate gladly in an open-forum Biblical discussion about what we can learn from Paul's letter to the Galatians. If it can inform our modern day view of the GB that's fine, but I think the view of an ex-JW vs the view of a JW is going to be rather predictable on that count. Nevertheless, I'd say 'go for it.'

[JW Insider]

8 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

Another comment from @JW Insider:

"Angus Stewart asked the wrong question of Bro Jackson. It seemed obvious that he had been prepped to ask "do you see yourself as modern-day apostles, the modern-day equivalent of Jesus' apostles. (The next question about the mouthpiece was meant to draw out the same issue.)

in the original context, the difference was that Angus Stewart asked "do you see yourself as modern-day disciples?" A lot of people use the term "Jesus' disciples" as synonymous with his original direct "twelve disciples." Of course, Bro Jackson could answer that the GB definitely see themselves as modern-day disciples. [Those taught by Jesus.] The GB also definitely see themselves as modern-day "sent-forth ones" which is the meaning of the word "apostles." And they do speak of themselves in several ways as a modern-day parallel to the apostles, or even as a kind of parallel to the small number of men who ended up writing all the books of the Christian Greek Scriptures. But Bro Jackson knew the danger of trying to explain these "parallels" to a non-JW so he steered clear of it by even pointing out that they, the GB, do not consider themselves to be the sole channel (mouthpiece) of truth today. Mr. Stewart had clearly been prepped with the knowledge that the Watchtower has many times pointed to the Watchtower publications and/or the Watchtower Society as the sole channel for dispensing truth today. This idea has been repeated very directly during the time of Russell, Rutherford and Knorr/Franz, but much more subtly in recent publications. 

[Many Miles]

1 hour ago, Juan Rivera said:

@Many Miles @Srecko Sostar@George88 @JW Insider Let me know if you guys want to create a new post with this topic in mind (Galatians) here in the open forum or closed.

For whatever small contribution it might make toward informing about the governing body as it has represented in the last century up until today, I would engage such a discussion in a public forum. 

It tends to be a touchy subject because, as you cited Rotherham, there tends to be sentiment that it’s ridiculous to even think what we look to as a governing body could knowingly present false teaching (what Rotherham depicts as apostasy).

Not to be overlooked is the writer to Galatia (Paul) was himself a newer convert to the Christ, Jesus. He was an ex-Judaic with firsthand experience with an religion/organization run amuck, which organization had, the old fashioned way, disfellowshipped one among themselves named Jesus. Paul himself had been drawn into this wholly wrongheaded way even to the point of persecuting followers of Jesus. Hence the man had passion for holding leaders accountable, which comes across loud and clear in the letters opening statements.

Nonetheless, I’d engage the topic. 

 

[Juan Rivera]

@JW Insider I agree, and I don’t want to rehash the same conversation. It seems you and other Witnesses have already dealt with Srecko on this topic, but it might help @Many Miles @George88 and me of course to get some insight.  Here’s two comments I found on the forum:

On 1/18/2023 at 11:15 AM, Anna said:

As I see it, the problem is those who think the GB are practically infallible (even though they say they are not) are the ones who become disgruntled and blame the GB for anything that happens in their life because they "listened" to the GB.

The Witnesses do it to themselves. They get so engrossed in looking to man for salvation forgetting that our prime allegiance is to God. Br. Jackson did explain it to the ARC; that if the GB put something out there that was un-Biblical, all Jehovah’s Witnesses who have a Bible would notice it. (A part of me wonders whether Br. Jackson said this merely hoping that this would be the case, I am sure not ALL Witnesses would notice). I have not heard this in any other setting except this secular “court”. There were other things explained there as well that I have not heard or read anywhere else, that I can remember*. For example, the mechanism by which the GB decide on a matter. Some Witnesses still think there is a little “flame” that sits on top of their head, and they “speak in tongues”. In other words that the holy spirit physically guides them to the right answer.  In the same way many think that Elders are appointed by holy spirit in the sense that the holy spirit points its finger at the chosen one, as it were. Many JWs are thus in fear of speaking out against an elder (even if there is valid reason) because they are afraid they would be going against the holy spirit.

Perhaps it would be good if these things were explained clearly to all JWs. Hearing Br. Jackson at the ARC certainly helped me to confirm what I already knew (from R. Franz's book). Probably those at Bethel who work closely with them are very familiar with the facts, but those average JWs in congregations around the world might have a completely skewed idea. I know I did! This is where I say more transparency is needed.  

 And your comment:

On 12/28/2016 at 7:25 PM, JW Insider said:

The small problem with this statement is easy to detect, and I'm sure you saw it, too.

It appears to claim that if "some" direction was given that was not in harmony with God's word, then "all of Jehovah's Witnesses" would notice. This has never, ever been true! Every time "some" change is made to a doctrine (and there have been literally hundreds of such changes) then the GB made this change because it was important to be in more complete harmony with God's word. In other words, if the change was made for the new teaching to be in harmony with God's word, then the previous teaching was not in complete harmony with God's word.

Yet, there has never been a case where more than a very few Jehovah's Witnesses spoke up, often none at all, as far as anyone knew. Back in the days when we were more attuned to anxiously await the latest "new light" from the yearly convention, the comments were always about how pleasantly surprised everyone was. No Witnesses are ever asked by the Governing Body what they think of a new doctrine and almost no Witnesses would dare say anything except that they agree completely, and that it was surely "food at the proper time." This is true, even though many of those items of "new truth" that we learned at all the assemblies in my formative years have been nearly scrapped, from "Your Will Be Done on Earth" [King of North/South, antimatter, fear of Sputnik] "Let Your Name Be Sanctified" [type-antitype Elijah as "Rutherford" and Elisha as "Knorr"] to "Babylon the Great Has Fallen" [Revelation "commentary" where almost half the paragraphs are already out of date].

I remember some of the adjustments, and wrong ideas over the years have been explained as "the right thing at the wrong time" or even once as "the wrong thing at the right time." [e.g., "superior authorities" of Romans 13]. Yet, it is always "food at the proper time" as far as perhaps 99% of us are concerned. 

But that's not the biggest problem with the claim. If it were true that even "some" wrong direction were easily detected by "all" then there is no need for a special "slave class" to present doctrines. If Brother Jackson is right, then it would be better to start from scratch and vote on each doctrine democratically.

This is not a complaint about the spiritual food we receive, and it's true that the specific menu of doctrines we enjoy is fulfilling and satisfies our spiritual needs. Over the years, however, much of it has proven to have been served at the wrong time, or it was the wrong thing. Some has even been toxic and resulted in spiritual death and loss of spiritual health for many. And we now have evidence that some of it has been kept toxic on purpose for many years because the servers didn't want to admit that it was bad food, even though the GB knew it was. (For example: The directions given on handing pedophilia cases for many years, corporal punishment of children, how a sister should respond to a physically abusive husband, chronological end-times speculation.)

I think most of these things have been corrected, or are in the process of further correction. But I don't blame the bad food on the "faithful and discreet slave" because I don't believe that this parable was a prophecy in the first place. For the most part the "spiritual food" served is wonderful. Where it is wrong it is usually corrected with something that is obviously better. But where someone digs in their heels and holds to false doctrine because of a tradition or inability to admit that it might have been wrong, this is not about an appointed "slave" proving themselves to be an "evil" slave, it's just the common human tendency of people who are looked up to as leaders to become like the Pharisees, and see themselves as more important or righteous. Teachers receive heavier judgment.

That's really the reason for the parable, anyway, as far as I can tell. It's so that a person who takes on the leadership position of Brother Jackson, for example, doesn't forget that he should be in subjection to you, Anna, and that he should be willing to give a literal drink of water to you or visit you when you are physically sick, or give you some actual physical food to eat if you are hungry.  And the parable was also meant to remind you, Anna, not to forget that you should be in subjection to Brother Jackson, and not be quick to judge him harshly even if you see that he has taken a false step. We should try to build each other up with patience and discretion and faithfulness, picking each other up as best we can, and trying to understand each others' mental, emotional, physical and spiritual needs so that we can be an encouragement to each other. As the "day" continues to draw near, we want to show love toward one another, so that all of us continue awaiting Jesus "parousia" without unnecessary distraction from the world and its desires. The point of the parable is that if the Master is away it's easy to lose faith, but by building our congregations up into a family of brothers and sisters who look out for each other with love, we will not be tempted to lose faith in the promise, which can result in disobendience to the Master, and being overly concerned about who is right and who isn't, or finding opportunities to "lord it over" our fellow servants.

 

 

[Many Miles]

22 minutes ago, Juan Rivera said:

@JW Insider I agree, and I don’t want to rehash the same conversation. It seems you and other Witnesses have already dealt with Srecko on this topic, but it might help @Many Miles @George88 and me of course to get some insight. 

 

I’m all for gaining insight. We should learn from one another. The primary issue I’ve raised regarding the letter to Galatia is that the then “governing body” (to borrow a term) was willing to tell the body of Christ when they should be held as accursed, and that doing so was fine as depicted. 

As things stand, right now and for decades there is misleading and patently false information plied by the society to prop up religious positions that, daily, have life and death consequences. This is all demonstrable. Only it’s not revealed by the society.
 

These things have to be found out otherwise, often from letters of correspondence from the society stating things that are never published for broader review and edification. In other cases it’s found in academic peer reviewed professional articles, which when questioned directly the content is confirmed privately by the society but with no broad publication. If it’s good for the goose it should be good for the gander.
 

When I learn of some of these things it is very disturbing, which is only exacerbated knowing if you question what you see happening you are subject to being branded. And, for what? Asking out loud about things that are demonstrably valid? Paul offered that the then “governing body” was subject to making sure they were being faithful in teaching and dealings with the brotherhood, and that it was fine to point to wrongness. Paul offered a litmus test to use of the then governing body. I’ve never read where our contemporary governing body could even possibly be held accursed for reason. It’s treated as a ridiculous notion. 

[Srecko Sostar]

6 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

On 1/18/2023 at 6:15 PM, Anna said:

As I see it, the problem is those who think the GB are practically infallible (even though they say they are not) are the ones who become disgruntled and blame the GB for anything that happens in their life because they "listened" to the GB.

The Witnesses do it to themselves. They get so engrossed in looking to man for salvation forgetting that our prime allegiance is to God. Br. Jackson did explain it to the ARC; that if the GB put something out there that was un-Biblical, all Jehovah’s Witnesses who have a Bible would notice it. (A part of me wonders whether Br. Jackson said this merely hoping that this would be the case, I am sure not ALL Witnesses would notice). I have not heard this in any other setting except this secular “court”. There were other things explained there as well that I have not heard or read anywhere else, that I can remember*. For example, the mechanism by which the GB decide on a matter. Some Witnesses still think there is a little “flame” that sits on top of their head, and they “speak in tongues”. In other words that the holy spirit physically guides them to the right answer.  In the same way many think that Elders are appointed by holy spirit in the sense that the holy spirit points its finger at the chosen one, as it were. Many JWs are thus in fear of speaking out against an elder (even if there is valid reason) because they are afraid they would be going against the holy spirit.

Perhaps it would be good if these things were explained clearly to all JWs. Hearing Br. Jackson at the ARC certainly helped me to confirm what I already knew (from R. Franz's book). Probably those at Bethel who work closely with them are very familiar with the facts, but those average JWs in congregations around the world might have a completely skewed idea. I know I did! This is where I say more transparency is needed.  

 And your comment:

On 12/29/2016 at 2:25 AM, JW Insider said:

The small problem with this statement is easy to detect, and I'm sure you saw it, too.

It appears to claim that if "some" direction was given that was not in harmony with God's word, then "all of Jehovah's Witnesses" would notice. This has never, ever been true! Every time "some" change is made to a doctrine (and there have been literally hundreds of such changes) then the GB made this change because it was important to be in more complete harmony with God's word. In other words, if the change was made for the new teaching to be in harmony with God's word, then the previous teaching was not in complete harmony with God's word.

Yet, there has never been a case where more than a very few Jehovah's Witnesses spoke up, often none at all, as far as anyone knew. Back in the days when we were more attuned to anxiously await the latest "new light" from the yearly convention, the comments were always about how pleasantly surprised everyone was. No Witnesses are ever asked by the Governing Body what they think of a new doctrine and almost no Witnesses would dare say anything except that they agree completely, and that it was surely "food at the proper time." This is true, even though many of those items of "new truth" that we learned at all the assemblies in my formative years have been nearly scrapped, from "Your Will Be Done on Earth" [King of North/South, antimatter, fear of Sputnik] "Let Your Name Be Sanctified" [type-antitype Elijah as "Rutherford" and Elisha as "Knorr"] to "Babylon the Great Has Fallen" [Revelation "commentary" where almost half the paragraphs are already out of date].

I remember some of the adjustments, and wrong ideas over the years have been explained as "the right thing at the wrong time" or even once as "the wrong thing at the right time." [e.g., "superior authorities" of Romans 13]. Yet, it is always "food at the proper time" as far as perhaps 99% of us are concerned. 

But that's not the biggest problem with the claim. If it were true that even "some" wrong direction were easily detected by "all" then there is no need for a special "slave class" to present doctrines. If Brother Jackson is right, then it would be better to start from scratch and vote on each doctrine democratically.

This is not a complaint about the spiritual food we receive, and it's true that the specific menu of doctrines we enjoy is fulfilling and satisfies our spiritual needs. Over the years, however, much of it has proven to have been served at the wrong time, or it was the wrong thing. Some has even been toxic and resulted in spiritual death and loss of spiritual health for many. And we now have evidence that some of it has been kept toxic on purpose for many years because the servers didn't want to admit that it was bad food, even though the GB knew it was. (For example: The directions given on handing pedophilia cases for many years, corporal punishment of children, how a sister should respond to a physically abusive husband, chronological end-times speculation.)

I think most of these things have been corrected, or are in the process of further correction. But I don't blame the bad food on the "faithful and discreet slave" because I don't believe that this parable was a prophecy in the first place. For the most part the "spiritual food" served is wonderful. Where it is wrong it is usually corrected with something that is obviously better. But where someone digs in their heels and holds to false doctrine because of a tradition or inability to admit that it might have been wrong, this is not about an appointed "slave" proving themselves to be an "evil" slave, it's just the common human tendency of people who are looked up to as leaders to become like the Pharisees, and see themselves as more important or righteous. Teachers receive heavier judgment.

That's really the reason for the parable, anyway, as far as I can tell. It's so that a person who takes on the leadership position of Brother Jackson, for example, doesn't forget that he should be in subjection to you, Anna, and that he should be willing to give a literal drink of water to you or visit you when you are physically sick, or give you some actual physical food to eat if you are hungry.  And the parable was also meant to remind you, Anna, not to forget that you should be in subjection to Brother Jackson, and not be quick to judge him harshly even if you see that he has taken a false step. We should try to build each other up with patience and discretion and faithfulness, picking each other up as best we can, and trying to understand each others' mental, emotional, physical and spiritual needs so that we can be an encouragement to each other. As the "day" continues to draw near, we want to show love toward one another, so that all of us continue awaiting Jesus "parousia" without unnecessary distraction from the world and its desires. The point of the parable is that if the Master is away it's easy to lose faith, but by building our congregations up into a family of brothers and sisters who look out for each other with love, we will not be tempted to lose faith in the promise, which can result in disobendience to the Master, and being overly concerned about who is right and who isn't, or finding opportunities to "lord it over" our fellow servants.

I think this is the first time I'm reading this comments from Anna and JW Insider.
I really like their observation about how fewer JWs notice the wrong things coming from GB. There are several reasons for this, in my oppinion. "Boundless" trust in those who lead the Organization from America (I'm talking about many who don't live in the USA, so that part is far for them, which is due to the literal distance, and also because of a perhaps fairy-tale idea about people they've never seen or heard of and never could until digital connectivity came along. Consider that this was especially evident for that part of Eastern European countries until 1990 and other parts of the world with limited communication in many ways as further factor)

People notice things with more or less confidence in their own judgments. However, this is perhaps more obvious when it comes to some more everyday, physical topics. When it comes to theology itself, most (of them, of us) don't even have time to deal with it that much, so that part of  brain activity is slowed down or underdeveloped, so to speak. Also, the idea that after becoming a JW they came "to the truth", came "to have the truth", becomes an obstacle and a trap, because now I am "safe, God is with me, he protects me because I believe in him and his organization". Furthermore, people are different and their current interests and circumstances, age, gender, length of time spent in the "organization", psychological and emotional development of the individual, etc. all affect our current awareness or unawareness of what is happening around us.

About "guide by spirit"

I think there is a difficulty in using this term because we don't really agree on the true meaning and purpose of such an idea. 
When GB uses that phrase about "being guided" it means something different from the words "led, guided by". Look at what it says, how explains this in the WT - https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-study-february-2017/who-is-leading-gods-people-today/. 

 

CAN YOU EXPLAIN?

In the first century and today, how have those taking the lead among God’s people been . . .

empowered by holy spirit?

assisted by angels?

guided by God’s Word?

.........5 Christians in the first century recognized that the governing body was directed by Jehovah God through their Leader, Jesus. How could they be sure of this? First, holy spirit empowered the governing body. (John 16:13) Holy spirit was poured out on all anointed Christians, but it specifically enabled the apostles and other elders in Jerusalem to fulfill their role as overseers........

 So today's GB refers to the pattern from the 1st century as legitimacy for its roles today. But here in the text of this magazine it speaks of some kind of "empowerment", not "guidance", also not "poured out on". (Being empowered and guided shouldn't be the same, right?)

But despite this terminological difference or similarity of terms and meanings in use, the WT passage uses the 3rd term to denote the operation of the same Power. It says that the spirit was "poured out" on those in the 1st century. So, three terms are used here to confirm exactly the same position of the Apostles and the position of the GB. Both of them are in a position to legitimately act on followers due to the action of HS. On the other hand, they say that there is a difference between these three words, and the biggest difference should be through the use of the 4th term through the meaning of the word "inspired".

Although all these words are associated with HS and should prove that HS acts on people in one way (to do God's will), it turns out that it is still not possible to achieve the same results during this superhuman action and that HS does not actually have the same power of action today as it had in the past. Because His biggest disadvantage is that  He is not able to "inspire" people today. He could only do that in the distant past. Why can't HS do that today? It turns out that he can't perhaps because God doesn't allow him, or because today's people don't have something that people in the 1st century had, or something else is the cause. WTJWorg claims that HS cannot "inspire" people today, is final result of GB theology.

If this is so, then there is no need to prove one's current Administrative status by comparing it through the structure of the existence of leadership in the past, which then arose only because of the action of HS which caused people to be "inspired".

 In the past, our publications have said the following: At Pentecost 33 C.E., Jesus appointed the faithful slave over his domestics... 4 The context of the illustration of the faithful and discreet slave shows that it began to be fulfilled, not at Pentecost 33 C.E., but in this time of the end. Let us see how the Scriptures lead us to this conclusion....Therefore, we may conclude that his words about that faithful slave began to be fulfilled only after the last days began in 1914. Such a conclusion makes sense... In recent decades, that slave has been closely identified with the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses. - https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/w20130715/who-is-faithful-discreet-slave/

Although WTJWorg explains that Jesus' words about the FDS were not fulfilled on the Apostles in the 1st century, but only from 1919, GB insists that they actually took over the governance model based on the established 1st congregation over which the Apostles were Hierarchical superiors. It is another in a series of inconsistencies. How could something that did not exist then (FDS aka GB class), in the past, become a model for what exists today?

 

The illustration of the faithful slave is part of Jesus’ prophecy about “the sign of [his] presence and of the conclusion of the system of things.”  - https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/w20130715/who-is-faithful-discreet-slave/

On what basis did WTJWorg turn the illustration into a prophecy? When can we expect other biblical illustrations and parables and comparisons to become prophecy?

 

Assisted by angels

Second, angels assisted the governing body. Before Cornelius was baptized as the first uncircumcised Gentile Christian, an angel directed him to send for the apostle Peter...Moreover, angels actively promoted and accelerated the preaching work that the governing body was overseeing. . - https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-study-february-2017/who-is-leading-gods-people-today/

For me, it is a superhuman effect on people and their actions. How can angels exert their influence and HS cannot? Experiences that were heard or read by JWs and were publicly published support the idea of superhuman intervention. Controversial to the existing idea of HS not being able to do what angels do.

"Directed, promoted, accelerated by angels" are additional words indicating superhuman action.    

Guided by God's Word

Third, God’s Word guided the governing body. Whether they were settling doctrinal issues or they were giving organizational direction, those spirit-anointed elders were led by the Scriptures. - https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-study-february-2017/who-is-leading-gods-people-today/

GB says, we hear that on JWTV, they meet and discuss, brainstorm, confront ideas, etc. It's a clash of minds and ideas. A completely normal human activity. Brainstorming and similar methods are called "guided by" the Bible. So what is the difference with "guided by HS"?