Srecko Sostar

I think it would seem to be quite presumptuous to say that we are the only spokesperson that God is using. Not my words. But I agree with the sentiment.
The early Christian church found it difficult to think there were people whose worship God accepted outside Judaism and outside Christianity. But God showed them different. There's no reason to think these worshipers were particularly organized. They were just living life in a way God accepted. How we live our life is our worship, not what organization we do or do not belong to. Just think about all the good that came from how Job lived his life, and this despite him having no advertised affiliation with any organization.
Asserting we must be organized to get things done is a slippery slop, and oftentimes the sentiment has ended up hurting people because too late folks discovered an organization had an underlying operating arrangement different than they were either allowed to or led to believe. God is not dependent on humans organizing to get His will done.
Because people organize to get things done does not mean to get things done you have to be organized. Because someone does not organize does not mean they don't care about getting things done; it just means they don't organize. That said, unity within an organization is not because of uniformity. To the contrary, unity is continuing within a common cause despite holding differences.
I'm not anti-organization. I am for rationality and transparency. Any organization whose primary purpose is to help people follow Jesus should be completely transparent and rational in all things. We find these attributes in the early Christian church.
 

…. you need to reread Luke 22:36-38.
Jesus DID COMMAND his Apostles to buy swords, but agreed that two were enough!
Your agenda is interfering with your reading comprehension.
He was not talking about swords for bears!
 

To the extent that is true it would appear that I am the blockhead.

Blockhead? lol
I thought that by now you already had the chance to know my sense of humor and some kind of irony and sarcasm in some of the written sentences. Well, for such things, we don't need to "conduct a Bible study" in order to master the material. Or do we? lol

Yes koalas are very cute but they have a big problem with STDs which I think they are trying to eradicate …..I wouldn’t hold one ..but one day ..it’s a sure thing….i don’t think pudgy looks as cute as that when he awakes…

One of the self-defense tools highly recommended by WTJWorg, when it comes to women, is to scream loudly. They never encourage them to take an actual self-defense course.
Please clarify what is the difference between "actual use " and "self-defense"? When is the "sword"  really used in actual defense use, and when is it used in self-defense?
 

"God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul." (Gen 2:7) 
Or, as the Live Forever book expresses it:
"Notice, however, that the Bible does not say that God gave man a soul. Rather, it says that after God started man breathing “the man came to be a living soul.” So the man was a soul, just as a man who becomes a doctor is a doctor. (1 Corinthians 15:45)  The “dust from the ground,” from which the physical body is formed, is not the soul. Nor does the Bible say that the “breath of life” is the soul. Rather, the Bible shows that the putting together of these two things is what resulted in ‘man’s becoming a living soul.’"
Plenty of children have comprehended that.
 

You blockhead. I mean, Duh, if anyone discards belief in God they necessarily focus on only the inconveniences of being Christian in the present system, which no Witness would ever deny there are some, but they are compensated by realities to come.
If there really is a God, and if there really will be a new system in which He rules unopposed, then he will enforce his own standards. Just like during that circuit assembly in the early 70’s in which two resurrected ones were bellyaching over everything under the sun, impervious to the correction that the loving elders (who weren’t packing guns) were pouring on like syrup, then the lights went out, there was a loud zap and a flash from heaven, and they were gone! Oh, yeah—a ‘dramatization’ it was.

I don’t know how else to say this, so here goes…. 
Do we REALLY want Elders in the Congregation to carry guns?

He can go to field service and conduct Bible study with people, i guess only this. According to articles from 2005 and 2017, your elders are not working according to the regulation if he have duties in congregation (carries microphone, reading, public speech etc. lol.
Unless, you can provide written WTJWorg material that say opposite.
 Can a Christian maintain a good conscience if he accepts armed employment?
Engaging in secular work that requires carrying a firearm or another weapon is a personal decision. But armed employment exposes one to possible bloodguilt if one uses the weapon and to the danger of injury or death from an attack or reprisal. A Christian carrying such a weapon would not qualify for special privileges in the congregation. (1 Timothy 3:3, 10)—11/1, page 31. - https://www.jw.org/hr/biblioteka/casopisi/w20051215/Sjećaš-li-se/
Christians strive to be exemplary. (2 Cor. 4:2; 1 Pet. 5:2, 3) After receiving Scriptural counsel, a Christian who continues to keep a gun for protection against other humans could not be considered exemplary. He would therefore not qualify for responsibilities or special privileges in the congregation. The same applies to a Christian who continues to carry a firearm as part of his secular work. How much better to seek other employment! 
 - https://www.jw.org/hr/biblioteka/casopisi/strazarska-kula-proucavanje-srpanj-2017/posjedovanje-oruzja-radi-zastite/

Juan, that's a lot of words, and to be honest, I'm not really sure what you're trying to say.
Because above you write:
"The question is not whether one will have glasses through which to interpret Scripture, but rather which glasses are the correct ones?" [Underlining added]
Let's start with something simple. Check the box that applies:
We should believe teaching "x" because:
[______] it's rational.
[______] the society says so.
[______] some other reason other than because it's "rational" or "the society says so".

Yes. I agree with that. And, people can debate the veracity of an interpretation. But once someone (anyone!) asserts an interpretation of a given text then they have no choice but to accept that interpretation equally and not pick-and-choose where and when they want that interpretation to apply. That is, if they want to use that interpretation rationally.
Here's an example of one such interpretation:
"So Satan’s ploy roused Eve’s curiosity; it got her to focus on the one thing in all the garden that was forbidden to her."
Short version:
There was only ONE THING in all the garden that was forbidden to Eve.
Among other things, that would mean:
Eve was not forbidden to eat meat, or blood.
Oh. Wait. That would interfere with a pet teaching, wouldn't it.

I hate to say it because 1) it sounds bad. But because 2) I could think of no other reason, and 3) given that the society's top leadership could not have ever imagined their own sworn oaths of allegiance to the United States of America would see the light of day, I 4) teeter between disingenuous and duplicitous.  

To be fair, I have ADD, and a 77 year old with ADD really needs to write with crayons.

Never could figure it out

I tend to break Juan’s and even JWI and their writing up in paragraphs at a time..just cannot do it in one hit …but it’s usually worth it even if I don’t understand everything…

Well, GB does not prohibit the carrying of weapons for private or official use. But those JWs who have it are not ideologically eligible/acceptable for any ministry in the congregation. With Jesus, the apostles were eligible/acceptable for service. So GB does not follow Jesus. Clear as a sunny day. lol

I don't doubt the overall point you are making that ultimately we must stand "ourselves alone" before the judgment seat of God. And you are right, too, about "examining our past actions and behavior to ensure they were not influenced by our own flawed understanding and judgment." I like that. It's very clear, and its scriptural:
(Galatians 6:3-5) For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he is deceiving himself. 4  But let each one examine his own actions, and then he will have cause for rejoicing in regard to himself alone, and not in comparison with the other person. 5  For each one will carry his own load.
 
The only thing I see a bit differently is not so important, but I hope you'll excuse me for pointing it out. The phrase "Am I my brother's keeper?" is not really meant to be a guide for our spiritual growth. More likely, in my opinion, it's a reminder that we SHOULD be our brother's keeper during the time of our spiritual growth.  Ultimately, we stand alone and carry our own load, but penultimately, during our spiritual growth, we SHOULD be our brother's keeper. We have a brotherhood, because Christianity is a social religion that works best when we mutually support one another. (Hebrews 10:24,25) The very point Paul made in Galatians, above, was preceded by a verse that sounded, at first, like just the opposite:
(Galatians 6:2) .Go on carrying the burdens of one another, and in this way you will fulfill the law of the Christ. 
I wouldn't have pointed it out, but it just sounded a bit jarring to think that Cain's words were some kind of spiritual guidance, when these were the words Cain used as he was trying to deflect and deceive Jehovah. He had just killed his own brother after harboring animosity and jealousy, and wanted to hide his crime. 

Good company is definitely a bonus. But if we put poison on our plate that's going to be a real bummer.

Emphasis is on "current".
lol

Link to book:
https://www.academia.edu/34138714/Ever_changing_teachings_of_Jehovahs_Witnesses_The_most_important_changes_in_the_doctrine_of_the_Watchtower_Society_in_the_years_1879_2015?email_work_card=title
Link to WT magazine:
https://archive.org/details/WatchTowerAndHeraldOfChristsPresence1910-1919/page/n1545/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/WatchTowerAndHeraldOfChristsPresence1910-1919/page/n1547/mode/2up

WTJWorg is not honest about this, too. Encyclopedia Britannica is not consistently cited in JW publications.

Another thing to consider is that everything we do in life is experimental, and just like Jehovah was surprised when the people rolled their children into the fiery stomachs of Molech, we are often surprised and sucker punched.
It’s not that we “love the Truth”, quite often what we love, we label as “ The Truth”. 
This is true for Saints and Monsters.
If a person is WRONG … but believes himself that what he in good conscience tells you is true …. that is NOT A LIE.
A lie has to be a DELIBERATE lie, and hearing something wrong from a self-deluded person, if you believe it, does NOT mean you have been lied to.
So, I believe that 95% of what we think is correct, that turns out to be wrong, in History, Astronomy, (Astronomer Percival Lowell believed he saw “Canals” on Mars …and for decades everyone on Earth believed it.), Chemistry, Physics … AND THEOLOGY, is not an attempt at deception.
Attempts at deception are lies.
Being cluelessly ignorant and self-delusional may make someone a certified fool … but labeling them as liars may be unfair …. and wrong!

Two ways of looking at that.
I can’t imagine the Apostles having busts of ANYONE in their homes and it not being a problem, but I can easily visualize the Roman Centurion Cornelias having a bust of Caesar in his home (or perhaps a Labarum) and it not being a problem, because he was SPECIFICALLY defined as a man having God’s approval. 
( The labarum was a military standard used by the Roman Empire, featuring the Chi-Rho symbol, a monogram representing the first two letters of "Christ" in Greek. It was introduced by Emperor Constantine the Great in the early 4th century as a Christian symbol on the battlefield. The labarum typically consisted of a staff topped with a banner displaying the Chi-Rho and sometimes accompanied by other religious symbols.
Before the adoption of the labarum, the Roman military standards included the eagle (aquila) as a prominent symbol. The aquila was a golden or bronze eagle mounted on a pole, serving as a revered emblem for Roman legions. These standards represented the honor and identity of the legion, and losing one in battle was considered a grave dishonor. Each legion had its own distinctive eagle, emphasizing the importance of these symbols in Roman military tradition.
Another standard was the "signum," a type of Roman military standard that featured images of the emperor and his family. These were smaller standards carried by individual cohorts within a legion. The images on the signum emphasized loyalty to the reigning emperor and served as a visual representation of the legion's allegiance to the imperial family. The primary standard, the aquila, was more focused on the legion as a whole, while the signum highlighted the personal connection between the soldiers and the ruling authority.  )
In the middle of a World War, I would imagine having a bust of Abraham Lincoln and two small flags would be a matter of personal conscience … only because the real life example of Cornelius, a man SPECIFICALLY defined as approved by God, trumps ANY contrary esoteric theory.
 
 

Link to book:
https://www.academia.edu/34138714/Ever_changing_teachings_of_Jehovahs_Witnesses_The_most_important_changes_in_the_doctrine_of_the_Watchtower_Society_in_the_years_1879_2015?email_work_card=title
Link to WT magazine:
https://archive.org/details/WatchTowerAndHeraldOfChristsPresence1910-1919/page/n1545/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/WatchTowerAndHeraldOfChristsPresence1910-1919/page/n1547/mode/2up