ComfortMyPeople

It bugs me when people act like they are worshiping an organization (the creation) rather than our Creator. It makes us seem cultish. Yes, respect and obedience to his "channel" has always been an integral part of our worship and relationship with Jehovah - even as Moses and Aaron were Jehovah's representatives. But if you were around at that time and saw Aaron making that golden calf, would you have thought you were being obedient to theocratic authority by bowing down to it? We shouldn't treat any human as a god. We shouldn't suspend our "clear thinking faculties" and hand them over to someone else because among other things not all men are who they appear to be. "Imposters...wolves in sheep's clothing...apostates..." we've had them all and still do. 

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

Hahaha, just a couple of weeks ago, when reporting my hours for last month to our group elder (a good friend as well) I told him how embarrassing my report was. I wasn't beating myself up over it though,  I had my parents in town and there just wasn't the time like usual as we were making day trips to show them around etc. He told me his weren't much better as he had been on vacation for two weeks

I don't think anyone had any trouble believing that Hebrew manuscripts contained the Divine Name. This has never been doubted by anyone I have ever read. But it is interesting to see that there is already a level of superstition about the Divine Name going on in this text from Psalms that appears to have come from about 100 years before Christ.
It reminds me of a preacher in a church who speaks in modern English but will only quote a scripture by using the archaic KJV English from 1611 CE. Here, we have text written in the current writing style, but every time the Divine Name shows up, it's put in a more archaic style from another 500 years further back.
If you were using this text to read out loud, it could very well have served the same purpose as the later elohim/adonai vowel-pointing techniques that the Mosoretes made use of, so that no one would pronouce the name out loud. The superstition this picture indicates about the Divine Name is an indication that the name might not have been pronounced even in the first and second century BCE, and that the practice was therefore common at the time Jesus read Isaiah in the synagogue. 

60 years in 8 different congregations in 3 states can offer up a few anomalies. My sister's experience was actually not so uncommon in the mid-west (Missouri) congregations I grew up in (1964-1976). But I've never personally heard of such things being covered up in the last 20 years. At the time, 1981, the elders seemed more concerned that my sister was going to tell the truth to the hospital staff, and this seemed to be their greatest fear. (Small towns revel in gossip and judgmentalism, so fears of public reproach on the congregation were very real.)
The only truly "weird" disfellowshipping I ever got involved with (and on the "wrong" side, at that)  was that of a 90-year old brother because his friends asked me if I could do something about it, and maybe even help to initiate an appeal. It was the kind of travesty that directly resulted in the loss of several other members of this old brother's congregation, including the couple who asked me if I could get involved.
Yet, I have never directly seen a pedophile case or child abuse case in all my years and congregations. I have not seen an apostasy case since 1984. Immorality, divorce issues, smoking and other youthful indiscretions are the only types of cases I've seen in 30 years, and these have been relatively rare, only one every few years. And, of course, the joyful side of each of these has been the return to normalcy after spiritual encouragement.
What I really hoped to get to in this conversation was to just go ahead and admit that I don't believe we shun properly, most of us anyway. That probably won't surprise anyone. I have no doubt at all, personally, that we overdo it, especially with family-based shunning. I think that shunning should be defined as not inviting disfellowshipped persons into congregation activities (platform teaching, audience comments, public prayer, congregation outings, etc). It has nothing to do with whether we should continue to do good things for any and all persons: enemies, friends, neighbors. We should be able to encourage them, talk to them, hire them, visit them when they are sick, etc., etc. That won't work for every single person in the congregation, especially someone who may have been wronged, but it will work for most.
(I think I ignored the previous conversation on shunning.)

Just noticed that if the angels who sinned were to be bound for 70 generations in Tartarus until their judgment, then this could have triggered a lot of discussion about genealogies (chronology) in the first century congregations and evidently even into Tertullian's generation, when many Christians still treated Enoch as inspired. If the check of the Bible genealogies let them see that Noah's flood had been about 2,400 years before Christ, then imagine the discussions about how long a generation would have been.
We currently date the Flood to about 2,370 years before Jesus was born, which is 2,440 years before Jerusalem was destroyed in 70. (But it was possible to get dates anywhere from 2000 to 3000 BCE for the Flood.) So imagine the possible speculation if each generation was considered to be 40 years long, then 70 generations could be 2,800 years. (40x70=2,800).  If they used 37 years as the length of a generation (from the time of Jesus prophecy until Jerusalem was destroyed) then the angels were to be imprisoned for 2,590 years, possibly fueling speculation of an imminent Armageddon. Even if they thought there should be an entire 1000-year millennium before the judgment of the angels then a generation of 49 to 50 years (Jubilee) would also mean that Armageddon was possibly just a few short years away.
This could have been part of the reason that the Bible includes the following admonition:
(Titus 3:9) But have nothing to do with foolish arguments and genealogies and disputes and fights over the Law, for they are unprofitable and futile. . .
(1 Timothy 1:4) 4 nor to pay attention to false stories and to genealogies. Such things end up in nothing useful but merely give rise to speculations rather than providing anything from God in connection with faith.
(2 Peter 3:8) However, do not let this escape your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.
 
 
 
 

(Ezekiel 44:25, 26) “They should not approach any dead human, or they will become unclean. However, they may make themselves unclean for their father, mother, son, daughter, brother, or an unmarried sister. And after the purification of a priest, they should count off seven days for him”
 
The priest should not contact any dead human… except his nearest relatives. Jehovah is very reasonable and comprehensive when dictating rules.
Would not it be fine to apply the same principle when we deal with disfellowshipped people? Why Paul doesn’t mention these exceptions in 1Cor 5? Why Ezekiel doesn’t mention the priest’s wife? Perhaps, because the common sense would guide the application. It isn’t the same my cousin than my father, it is?
Other reference:
(Leviticus 21:1, 2) “Jehovah went on to say to Moses: “Talk to the priests, Aaron’s sons, and say to them, ‘No one should defile himself for a dead person among his people. But he may do so for a close blood relative, for his mother, his father, his son, his daughter, his brother,…”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40704990
Even the highly regarded BBC cannot resist the  temptation to indulge in gutter-press standard reporting when it comes to Jehovah's Witnesses.
This report on the Jehovah's Witnesses disfellowshipping process is rather misleading. It associates the disfellowshipping action with totally unrelated experiences and leaves the impression that this action is taken: 
1. when a person leaves an abusive relationship 
2: when a person does not attend the annual memorial celebration of Christ's death.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Even the most inexperienced researcher could easily find out the circumstances leading to this serious and scriptural measure by looking at https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/shunning/.
It is unlikely that the interviewees would reveal the real reason for their disfellowshipping which would probably cause personal embarrassment, and there is no way that the official organisation would comment or reveal the details of an individual case.
 

These are excellent points. The reason I included what was written in Genesis 6 was because we absolutely need to include Jehovah in this discussion. In Genesis 6, it appears that Jehovah had already judged the world as wicked and only mentioned finding one righteous person, Noah. The way a person is known to be righteous to others is by standing up for what is right in their conduct, speech and of course, the important part that Jehovah sees, the right motivation. I have no doubt that Noah had distinguished himself not only in front of Jehovah, but also in front of others. As Romans 10:10 and Luke 12:34,35 shows, this would have included his speech. Therefore both his example and his speech apparently made him a preacher of righteousness.
(Matthew 12:34, 35) . . .For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. 35 The good man out of his good treasure sends out good things. . .
@b4ucuhear pointed out that Hebrews 11:7 shows that Noah showed godly fear and constructed an ark and through Noah's faith he condemned the world. It's not that much of a logical stretch to surmise that this was the way in which he "preached" but, as b4ucuhear also said, we don't know for sure whether this meant that he actually preached a divine warning. 
The point from Ezekiel 33 is about a person commissioned as a watchman to preach a warning to Israel.
(Ezekiel 33:2-6) . . .“‘Suppose that I bring a sword upon a land, and all the people of that land take a man and make him their watchman, 3 and he sees the sword coming upon the land and blows the horn and warns the people. . . .  6 “‘But if the watchman sees the sword coming and he does not blow the horn and the people receive no warning and a sword comes and takes the life of one of them, that person will die for his own error, but I will ask his blood back from the watchman.’
The others that Jehovah had condemned in Noah's day were not in the same situation as this, so we can't claim that Jehovah was required to do the same thing in Noah's day as he did for Israel when he commissioned Ezekiel to be a watchman. It was Jehovah who made the warning, but only to Noah. We don't really even know if Noah's family helped him or believed him. They were not said to be part of a band of preachers, nor does the Bible even say that they lifted a finger to help Noah with the ark-building project. We can only guess. I would guess the same as you have, but we can't claim that it must be true just because it's a good guess.
Also, when you read about the judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 18 and 19, you notice that the warning came from Jehovah only to the people he wanted to save. Similar to what happened to Noah, the angels only asked Lot to get his relatives out of the city. We read of no warning to the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, themselves. Jehovah had told Abraham that he (Jehovah) had already judged that there were not even 10 righteous people in Lot.
Why else could Jesus say the following?
(Matthew 10:14, 15) . . .. 15 Truly I say to you, it will be more endurable for the land of Sodʹom and Go·morʹrah on Judgment Day . . .
(Matthew 11:23, 24) . . .if the powerful works that took place in you had taken place in Sodʹom, it would have remained until this very day. 24 But I say to you, it will be more endurable for the land of Sodʹom on Judgment Day than for you.”
My point is that it is a tendency of "human thinking" and "human reasoning" to add to the scriptures. It is always better to remember what you said: "Our reasoning imperfect and flawed, should always include Jehovah God, not human thinking and such."

That's a pretty good point. Despite that natural tendency to want to defend orthodoxy - myself included, there are many instances that may seem to make sense or true at the time but if not explicitly stated in the Bible could be wrong. (1975 and other dates; King of the North; types and anti-types...even some of the "predictions"/interpretations we have now of the details of the way things are going to happen in the future...may have seemed right but may be going beyond the things written). It's always safer to stick to what the Bible actually says. I still believe reasonable assumptions can be made even when the Bible doesn't spell it out, but it would be presumptuous to be dogmatic about it as if we had some miraculous ability to make predictions and whatnot. 

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

That is basically what I wanted to focus on in my next response. Haven't thought about it enough yet. But basically, even though the technical details may not be included in every account, what really would be characteristic of Jehovah to do? What would be in keeping with his personality to do - to have Noah do  - without focusing so much on the questioned/maybe possible details that we don't see the forest? It's more than that though. When we consider that Jehovah who can read hearts could just destroy all wicked without a word, why doesn't he? Because there is a whole universe of intelligent creatures that are spectators to this legal drama and issues and challenges have to be answered. It's not enough to say for instance, that "mankind can't even direct his own step so I will destroy them all/or all governments." It has to be demonstrated beyond all doubt as a precedent for all eternity. People are judged by the choices they make and given the opportunity, would they repent/make the right choice as did the Ninevites and others?  Sure Jehovah could know their hearts. But no way for the universal court spectators to find out unless you give those in question the chance. And while all details of every account are not included in God's Word, we see that Jehovah very patiently gives even the seemingly wicked an opportunity. He sent his own son to die for even enemies. Even promising a resurrection of the righteous and unrighteous. Doesn't that sound more like a God of love, justice, mercy...
Nehemiah 9:16... "But they, our forefathers, acted presumptuously...refused to listen...became stubborn...But you are a God ready to forgive, compassionate and merciful, slow to anger and abundant in loyal love, and you did not abandon them. Even when they made for themselves a metal statue of a calf and were saying 'This is your God...' and they committed great acts of disrespect, even then you, in your great mercy, did not abandon them in the wilderness..." True, there eventually was an accounting, but Jehovah was pretty patient and merciful and that was evident to all. They had plenty of opportunity to change. Jehovah couldn't be charged with being unfair, unilateral or acting without warning or even using his power in an unfair manner. What would make it unfair? To me it would be if he destroyed them without even giving them a chance or warning - even though the Bible doesn't supply every detail.
I haven't really thought all the details through as I have just read this and am responding immediately, but it is in the general direction I was thinking - along with your line of reasoning.

(Luke 12:47, 48) . . .Then that slave who understood the will of his master but did not get ready or do what he asked will be beaten with many strokes. But the one who did not understand and yet did things deserving of strokes will be beaten with few. Indeed, everyone to whom much was given, much will be demanded of him, and the one who was put in charge of much will have more than usual demanded of him.
 
Anna, everyone of us know who has the responsability to fix the situation: "his master on coming" (Lu 12:43)
So, what can we do? Wait, be busy in the work and making fine things, and pray.
Pray for these brothers in th GB, that they have the wisdom and courage to act. Pray for the humble ones, that Jehovah grant them faith to wait without stumbling

A full explanation (aka, a REALLY long post) would probably appear like a pendulum swinging between the extremes of never reporting and reporting everything we are asked to report and then some. (Matthew 23:3) "Therefore, all the things they tell you, do and observe. . ."
Similar to what @PeterR said, my opinions are expressed here as a "thought experiment" for anyone to consider and respond to.
Yes, it's possible for "legalism" to exist side-by-side with proper motivation. Jesus dealt with this situation as a necessity during his own ministry when the legalism had not yet been nailed to the stake. Jesus put it this way:
(Matthew 23:23) 23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you give the tenth of the mint and the dill and the cumin, but you have disregarded the weightier matters of the Law, namely, justice and mercy and faithfulness. These things it was necessary to do, yet not to disregard the other things.
Of course, when the Law is written on your hearts, this refers to the total primacy of the heart-felt motivation: "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks." But all of us need a bit of tutoring in our motivation, just as the Law was a tutor. But the Law showed us where we came up short, and therefore took away most of the joy.
(Galatians 3:19) Why, then, the Law? It was added to make transgressions manifest, until the offspring should arrive. . .
This is quite true, but counting hours is not the only motivation in keeping up the "status" of being a pioneer. It's the accolades from men that go with the title. The same could also be said of appointed elders, and ministerial servants, and the various types of overseers in the organization, and yet the terms are Biblical -- and these are privileges to be reached out for. Paul spoke of various thresholds of qualification for those "titles."
But one of the legalistic problems with the various pioneer titles is that when considering something to be "full-time" service, there is no such thing as saying one person is in full-time service and another is not. 400 hours a month might not be full-time to one person, and yet 5 hours a month might be full-time for another. (Remember the widow's "mite.") In truth, all Christians must be full-time; that's what whole-souled means.
(Matthew 22:37-40) . . .“‘You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.’ 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 The second, like it, is this: ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, . . .

I can't say I disagree with other posts pointing out that the actual words say "knew not," "did not know..." It's also a fair point to be made that if the Bible doesn't actually say something, our translations shouldn't take liberties to make it appear as something different. As lauded as our NWT is for it's accuracy in some circles, there is no denying that at times liberties have been taken. Especially in our latest revision. Still I like it and use it (along with others). The point I was making in quoting these other commentators is that it would appear that using the same scriptures as a basis, they came to much the same conclusion in their observations as indicated in the NWT. That people living at Noah's time must have known something was up and were not completely ignorant of what was to happen, but they took no note (they chose to "know not".). According to (some) Bible commentators, they "knew not" in the sense that they didn't want to know. I can't say I'd be dogmatic that Noah's being a preacher of righteousness included warning people of an imminent flood. But warning people in order for them to make a change/turnaround does seems consistent with the way Jehovah often does things - giving even wicked ones an opportunity to make a choice for live or death. So to me as posted above, it does seem "most likely" that Noah as "preacher of righteousness" included some kind of warning.

That idea in some commentaries could be very valid. But, as you have already said, a commentary is not the same as a translation -- at least it shouldn't be.
There is a tendency in commentaries to conflate their interpretations of ALL the scriptures on a topic into a single coherent idea, in spite of the fact that Jesus may have used this illustration or circumstance to highlight a different idea.
I think it gets back to the idea of the "heart" wanting to think that Noah must have warned everyone, so we want to understood "preacher of righteousness" to mean Noah gave everyone a warning. And he very well might have, but we are speculating if we decide that our favorite definition of "preacher" must fit this particular situation.
Whether Noah gave a warning or not, Jesus' point seems more likely to highlight the fact that they acted as if they had had no warning -- as if there had not been a warning. So it's not a key point of the verse to point out that a warning must have taken place. It changes the sense of the verse and the context to try to add this point. Doesn't mean that there is no truth to the idea of a warning in another context.
I think it's the same way in which many people think that Jesus' purpose (in Matthew 24) was to let the disciples know that there would be advance warning signs. This is what many commentaries WANT the whole chapter to be saying. There are one or two places that sound like something could be taken as a warning, and about 10 places where Jesus sounds like he was trying to say it would come as a thief, suddenly, without warning. It doesn't seem fair that it would be without warning at least to the faithful or at least to the angels, so we overthrow 10 clear verses in favor of one or two that could partially suggest otherwise.
I think that some have looked at this idea and think I'm trying to say that we should not be giving a warning about the end of this system. This is not the point at all. We can always warn people about how deep we must be into the time of the end. The only thing we should NOT be doing is saying "The Time is at Hand!" That's the way in which Matthew 24 (Mark 13, Luke 21) would be misinterpreted, and why Jesus started out with a warning about how easy it would be to get misled.
English Standard Version - Luke 21:8
And he said, “See that you are not led astray. For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am he!’ and, ‘The time is at hand!’ Do not go after them."

Who would reject the Baptism in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ? The Answer may surprise you.  In fulfillment of prophecy Jesus stated, “And this good news of the Kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.” (Matthew 24:14)
The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:“The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century.”
“The Demonstratio Evangelica” by Eusebius: Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. On page 152 Eusebius quotes the early book of Matthew that he had in his library in Caesarea. According to this eyewitness of an unaltered Book of Matthew that could have been the original book or the first copy of the original of Matthew. Eusebius informs us of Jesus’ actual words to his disciples in the original text of Matthew 28:19: “With one word and voice He said to His disciples: “Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” That “Name” is Jesus.
The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, page 275:“It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but…a later liturgical addition.”
Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger: He makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew 28:19. “The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome.” — Joseph Ratzinger (pope Benedict XVI) Introduction to Christianity: 1968 edition, pp. 82, 83.
How did the Hebrew Book of Matthew 28:18-20 read? “Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth.  Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations in MY Name,  teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you. And look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.” (Hebrew Matthew 28:18-20)
To request a free home Bible Study click here.

There you go. To you it seems that if it isn't measurable it doesn't happen. If reporting hours is all you've ever known then I can see why you might not be able to get past that.
Philip was known as "the evangelizer". Do you think for a moment it was because he accepted it as a title for doing in excess of x number of hours preaching per month? Or do you think that people simply knew him as a man who naturally preached the Gospel at every opportunity.
The latter portion of Deut 6:7 is often tied to talking about your love for Jehovah to your kids. And given the opening that would obviously be true. But when I read it the passage says 1) inculcate your love for God in your children and 2) speak about them always - to anyone, always (including incidentally yourself in meditation).
Mal 3:16 talks of those who would naturally talk about spiritual things and share faith as part of any conversation.
I actually find it a little shocking that people would so clearly reveal that they don't feel any of this would be noticed by others unless a number of "service hours" was turned in every month.
 
Well yeah. I hadn't even considered that as part of this conversation. But if it even puts a some people under pressure some of the time, such that it could tempt them into any form of dishonesty, then there's another reason why Jesus might have warned against it.
I can perfectly see the benefit of setting personal goals. That's not what's being discussed here. They can remain personal and there is no conflict with any scriptural injunction.
 
I'm sorry but I don't buy that. I do have some specific experience into how this process works. Even before everything went electronic, planning for literature production was always done through the movement of literature inventory - and advance requests made for campaigns - at a congregation level. Collecting a report of member's individual hours of service performed in the previous month has no value in this regard.
 
So what would we lose that would apply from that verse? We couldn't boast about total number of hours in any given country. Does anyone actually bring that out when reviewing the annual report anyway? We just wouldn't be able to boast about 1 billion hours (or whatever it is) globally.
But isn't the real source of encouragement 1) overall growth and 2) personal experiences. Growth is pretty well measured by baptisms (minus deaths and disfellowshippings). This would be unaffected. The overall number of JWs in any given country and worldwide would still be available. I can see an argument for keeping a tally of studies too. That's encouraging. But that's not what we're talking about here which is individuals reporting how much time they spent publicly representing the organization.
 
Well the fulfillment of the Psalm and the verse in Matthew will be evident regardless. As far as the James scripture I don't see the relevance unless you're somehow reading into it that faith and works would only be evident through numbers.
 

To Anna & others who are suggesting that submitting a report of hours is at least one way to measure spiritual heath ...
Here's another method. Stop reporting hours and stop accepting titles for your works, and then see what you are motivated to do. That would arguably be a truer test of spiritual health.
I have personally seen this go both ways. I've seen people who stop reporting, and end up increasing their Christian activity, including preaching and general Christian acts of kindness. And others who stop reporting and well ... just stop.
This argument that metrics help everyone know where they are on the spiritual map is quite misguided IMO. Think about anyone you know in the congregation. Would you really know less about their spiritual condition if you didn't know how a precise number of "field service hours" they were doing?
 

FWIW, I think that you made your point very well, and the fact that you got people to defend a parallel between the way we measure spiritual health with the way we measure physical health made your point even stronger. At least to those who understand that you are coming at this from the viewpoint of first-century Christians.
I heard two two Circuit Overseers (one was a "retired" CO) laughing about how the Apostle Paul would have probably thrown a fit if he saw how much emphasis was put on measuring numbers. It was their opinion that this is exactly what legalism was all about: measures vs. motivation. And it's not just Matthew 6:3, of course. It's the context of the entire "Sermon on the Mount" where it comes from.
(Matthew 6:1, 2) . . .“Take care not to practice your righteousness in front of men to be noticed by them; otherwise you will have no reward with your Father who is in the heavens. 2 So when you make gifts of mercy, do not blow a trumpet ahead of you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be glorified by men. . . .
The idea of a "pioneer" or "full-time servant" as opposed to a publisher is just another legalism based on a measure so that we are "noticed" for our gifts of mercy. So the entire context of Romans (regarding "law") and other letters of Paul are just as applicable. We are being reminded that we probably would not have the motivation to perform such works without the "notice" that these "awarded" titles provide. Yet Jehovah does not reward "service" and "works;" Jehovah rewards only pure, heart-felt motivation. Works can be void of pure motivation, but pure motivation will never be void of the kind of works that Jehovah appreciates. Jehovah rewards only the motivation based on love for Him and love for our fellow humans. He sees our works, and does not ignore them of course, but it's our work done in secret, never reported to anyone, that is evidence of proper motivation. Otherwise, it is just as likely that it is men we are trying to please, not Jehovah. 
As I'm sure you already know, there are literally hundreds of other verses in support of this same idea.
 

Sure. If you think true Christianity is measured like blood pressure then I have no wish to argue with you. I believe JW's are fairly unique among Christian denominations in this regard. Perhaps Jesus' direction in Matt 6:3 doesn't actually apply to us, and perhaps also the Bible just omitted the need to measure people by "hours of work" by accident.
If you truly believe that then I don't wish to dispute with you. Some people are suggesting that it's the right way to handle things, and I'm simply pointing out the mindset and counter-productive fruits that can result by being constantly oriented in this way.
Personally I don't feel that any scriptural instruction is for no reason, but I appreciate that others rationalize differently.

Thank you for posting such a lovely poem.  I can relate to this poem very well.  Recently (within the last few years) I was in a deep depression.  I would go to meeting arriving just as the song started, sit in the back and leave as soon as the last song and prayer were over.  I didn't have the capacity to visit and the noise afterwards was very overwhelming.   I just wanted to be in the "Satan Free Zone" as I call our meetings.   There were new friends who had moved in and probably thought I was disfellowshipped.  I was visited by 2 sisters while out in service and also the brothers made a point of visiting me on a couple of occasions.  I poured out my heart to them and they were so kind and put no pressure on me, just let me know I was valuable to Jehovah, Jesus and the congregation using scriptures and gentle words.   I love them for that, that is true shepherding (sisters included).  I have recovered now and try to pay-it-forward in service and to my brothers and sisters; giving hugs and kind words seasoned with a sense of humor when appropriate.   I make it a point to look for those who don't feel included so that I can share the love I have with them so that it may encourage them to keep going.   Why should we only be searching for sheep to come through the front door when we are losing so many out the back door?  

Surprisingly there are many people who do enjoy that, but like you Anna I personally am not one of them. My wife and I love our brothers and sisters and enjoy their company, but when we get home from a day of service, we just want to chill or use what little time is left to get stuff done. "Dropping by unannounced" is not something I've ever been cool with - although I know many others are. If someone drives past my house without "just dropping by," I view that as an act of consideration toward me - it's not too much to ask for a brief text or phone call first to ensure it's not an inopportune time. It's happened on more than one occasion for example that it's well into the evening, we have finished supper and I'm sitting on my lounger watching a favourite TV show in my PJ's with a remote in one hand and a glass of Scotch in the other...knock, knock, ding, dong...family with kids in tow "just drops by" = awkward.  

I used to when I was a teenager. Spontaneous drop ins were great as there was an excuse to take a break from homework or some other mundane task! But now our lives are so planned out, even our relaxation time, that any interruption is not really welcomed especially if you have no time to prepare physically or mentally. I thought I would personally kill the two elders that "dropped in while passing by" after I had had sinus surgery and looked like I had been severely beaten up. I was resting on my chaise, still partially drugged up,  and lo and behold, I see these two guys walking past my window. Normally I wouldn't have answered the door, but the combination of the hydrocodone and my fuzzy mind, I thought it was something important, I had no idea it was going to be one of our elders and the CO! I hadn't told anyone about the surgery, and they must have wondered why I was absent for his visit, plus it was raining and they were looking for things to do, lol. Anyway, the week after that I took that elder aside and wagging my finger at him  I jokingly but seriously told him to never ever do that to me again! I think because they are guys, brothers don't understand that women like to put themselves together before accepting visitors.

Where they disrespectful?
Ex 18:17: Moses’ father-in-law said to him: “What you are doing is not good.” A non-Israelite making amends to the greatest prophet!
2Sam 12:7: Then Nathan said to David: “You are the man! (Murderer and adulterer!)
1Chro 21:3 “But Joab said: “May Jehovah multiply his people 100 times! My lord the king, are not all of them already servants of my lord? Why does my lord want to do this? Why should he become a cause of guilt to Israel?” The anointed interpellated as causing trouble to the nation!
Gal 2:14 “But when I saw that they were not walking in step with the truth of the good news I said to Cephas before them all…” Even the behavior was anything but exemplary.
Likewise, JWInsider, me and other have scriptural evidence that disagreement is not equal to disrespect. We’re not saying the GB are persons that deceitfully want to exploit us. On the contrary, many of us think these brothers are, basically faithful and prudents. We would not want to be marked with these strong words: (Jud 8) “…despising authority, and speaking abusively of glorious ones…”
But we think the brothers in the GB are LIKE US… mere mortals, mere humans, imperfects. With their phobias and philias. They, like me, are afraid of losing authority or credibility when recognizing mistakes. They, like me, are afraid the humbles ones perhaps start thinking this is not the correct religion when seeing mistakes…
Do these commentaries make others to stumble?
Do vaccines hurt? Absolutely. The necessary hurt to get immunity. You probably are aware Native Americans almost disappeared because their bodies lacked defenses. And this is our intention (JWInsider and me). To inoculate defenses against doubts asking the similar questions these other brothers would find, sooner or later.
And don’t obviate the obvious! We’re are active JW. We’re giving support to this people. We’re following the direction of the brothers on authority… year after year, for decades.