Srecko Sostar

The WT's statements about the GB are a logical fallacy. That is why you are having difficult harmonizing your beliefs.
"The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. Therefore, it can err in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction. In fact, the Watch Tower Publications Index includes the heading “Beliefs Clarified,” which lists adjustments in our Scriptural understanding since 1870. Of course, Jesus did not tell us that his faithful slave would produce perfect spiritual food." Watchtower 2017 Feb p.26 "Since Jehovah God and Jesus Christ completely trust the faithful and discreet slave, should we not do the same?" Watchtower 2009 2/15 p. 24-28 It's the textbook example of cognitive dissonance: believing in contradictory ideas at the cost of one's mental state. There is a reason why JWs struggle in the organization. They are being given mixed signals under their leadership. JWs are expected to be understanding of the GB's mistakes while also fully compliant to their direction. Imagine having a spouse that demands total obedience but also expects love and understanding when wrong. People would call that an unhealthy relationship with one partner holding all the power.
One wonders why Jehovah God appointed fallible, uninspired men over his people when he was perfectly capable of accurately conveying his truths to the writers of the Bible? There is no scriptural precedent for the idea of unquestioned obedience to a group of uninspired men. There is no scriptural precedent to putting obedience to men above scriptural truth. 
Complete trust in someone or some group requires strong support. Trust in the GB can't come from its history of unwavering doctrine, because the GB acknowledges it has made errors in doctrine and changes have been made. Trust also can't come from the GB's prophet status, because the GB acknowledges it is not inspired by God. 
So, what does the WT offer as support for complete trust in the GB?
The preaching work: "...the faithful and discreet slave has been able to accomplish in giving a worldwide witness about Jehovah God, his Son, and the Kingdom. Jehovah’s worshippers are actively proclaiming the Kingdom message in over 230 lands and island groups." 2009 2/15 p. 24-28 The growth in members: "...In the last 15 years, the number of congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses worldwide has grown from some 70,000 to over 100,000—an increase of over 40 percent. And what about the new disciples added? Nearly 4.5 million disciples were baptized in the last 15 years—an average of more than 800 a day." 2009 2/15 p. 24-28 This 'support' is brought into question when it is pointed out that other Christian denominations engage in forms of preaching work all around the world. For many years, the JW organization did have tremendous growth, but that growth has slowed in recent years and is even in decline in some countries. The fastest growing Christian denominations in America are Catholics and Evangelicals. (The fastest growing religion in the world is Islam.) So, this support is weak at best, and it doesn't change the logical paradox the GB expects all JWs to accept.

This is the blind leading those who must remain "blind" to the errors in teaching taught blindly...all because God has one's interests at heart?

June 2017 Watchtower
15. How does respect for theocratic headship reveal our love for Jehovah’s way of ruling?
15 What is our response to divinely authorized headship? By our respectful cooperation, we show our support for Jehovah’s sovereignty. Even if we do not fully understand or agree with a decision, we will still want to support theocratic order. That is quite different from the way of the world, but it is the way of life under Jehovah’s rulership. (Eph. 5:22, 23; 6:1-3; Heb. 13:17) We benefit from doing so, for God has our interests at heart.
 
So does this mean that if you do not agree with the "err" that is presented, you still must support it? YES it does. It states that if we do not, then we are not showing support or cooperation for Jehovah's sovereignty. So somehow the sovereignty of Jehovah is at stake if we do not side with the wt.  
Again, no proof that ANYONE authorized this leadership but they themselves. 
 
lets not forget:
Watchtower (Study) 15 November 2013, page 20
(3) At that time, the life-saving direction that we receive from Jehovah’s organization may not appear practical from a human standpoint. All of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether these appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not.  https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/w20131115/seven-shepherds-eight-dukes/
 

The part I find troubling is this, to whom do you need to answer these 100 questions and where in the Bible do we find these requirements to join Jehovah's organization? The simple answers are 1. Men  and  2.You don't, but people subject themselves to this on the basis of men who claim authority directly from Jehovah with no actual proof. In fact it is just the opposite, there IS proof, proof that they are not chosen, not any different that anyone else. The proof is freely admitting by means of the "err" statement, but yet still claiming this authority. They are playing with a two-headed coin!
There is only ONE requirement in the Bible to be a part of God's family, John 1:12

I like this, as we all should strive for the truth and not negate others positions unless we hold it up to scrutiny and see if it is indeed truth. This leads me to a question, not just to you JWInsider but to all here, and it comes from reading a portion of your previous post:
 
 If present "truth" replaces previous "truth" as seen here in this quote, and future "truth" may replace present "truth", what is the definition being used here for "truth"? 
Hi Anna,
I am glad that you have not had reason to be distrustful thus far. Your description here brings to mind the times when vaccines were rejected based on the teachings of the society, as well as organ transplants. Those people held to the society's position, and some of them died. Now when the new "truth" came out and made these things acceptable, what then do you say to the families who lost loved ones? Oops? Sorry, we just didn't understand? I am glad to hear you have a balanced view, and most likely have a difference of opinion on somethings than what the society's position is, I think that is healthy. While I do agree that there are some who have much greater knowledge than I in various aspects, I respect them very much, I still hold to something you said :
 
I'm glad you made this statement, it describes exactly how we should be approaching God's word, individually with help. I do not believe we should hold ANY man/men's interpretation as anything more than information for us to ponder and reflect. Sometimes we will align and sometimes we will not. God wrote to us individually and as a whole. We do not come to God as a group, but rather humbly as individuals. 

Your last line quoted here appears to be a reference to whether or not you think I'm saying that the Governing Body is a principal aspect of an arrangement made by Jehovah to lead his people at a particular time. I think the other side of that same coin is made out to be that if they are not that, then they are therefore self-appointed, and are not therefore a divine provision.
In so many circumstances, the most dangerous thing a human can do is speak about someone's leaders. For most of us, we find our comfort zone when we understand our own fixed place in an ideological hierarchy, and humans have been known to squirm, fight, or even kill when that ideological comfort zone is disturbed or threatened.
So, yes, there may yet be a significant portion of this discussion that needs clarification.
If you are trying to understand my own position on this subject, then I appreciate the opportunity to explain. Unfortunately, we have so much invested in the Watchtower's current explanation of Matthew 24:45 that any different view might prove to be quite difficult to explain without taking a couple more steps back to get a fresh look at the parable. 
I believe I have already stated that bodies of elders should be found in every congregation and they should serve as leading examples, overseers, administrators, teachers, etc. It is therefore inevitable that groups of congregations who work together or share assemblies together will also find a need for different kinds of administrators and leaders, and in effect a body of elders might be found for various groupings of congregations. We have utilized circuit overseers, assembly servants, branch or zone overseers, etc., to form such bodies (or committees) of elders. An even more important leadership role will inevitably be needed over the global set of congregations, and this is, from another perspective, a single congregation, too. It will also have whatever type of body of elders is deemed useful, wise, and important for that particular need. As Fred Franz pointed out in a previously referenced speech, it seems that most major large religious denominations invariably end up with some type of "governing body" even if it's called by another name.
Are they self-appointed? Not really. Remember that we follow the Biblical instructions for qualifications of elders, and therefore elders are appointed by previously appointed elders, who were all apparently approved due to meeting scriptural qualifications. And the very fact that some will reach out for the office of overseer (or qualify as a spiritually mature older man) is a good thing. Some of these men will be better at teaching, some at speaking, some at evangelizing, some at comforting, some at managing, some at visiting the sick, some at looking after orphans and widows in their tribulation, some at judicial matters, some at helping married couples, etc., etc. These are "gifts in men" as we sometimes say. Jehovah has given everyone an opportunity to find areas of sacred service no matter what our personalities. So it would be very unfair to point to the members who have been selected as a committee or body of elders for the overall congregation, and say that they were self-appointed. We need to recognize that the entire orderly arrangement for any congregation is all part of an arrangement from Jehovah. And for our particular type of ministry as Jehovah's Witnesses, there is going to be a strong desire to see men in leadership positions who tend to best represent that ministry to the entire world. We would expect to see good, sincere, faithful examples who are well-spoken, have excellent reputations, understand the scriptures, and have decades of experience in full-time ministry. And this certainly shows up in the selected appointees to the Governing Body. And it is an important part of our preaching and teaching ministry that the Governing Body takes a lead in making choices about the Bible-based publications, Bibles, and various types of Bible-based instruction that the congregations appreciate.
But back to the interpretation of the parable. There is nothing in the parable that says that the faithful and discreet slave prepares spiritual food. There is a faithful and discreet slave that is put in charge of food operations in this household while a master is away. But this is a parable that Jesus says was to point out the different kind of attitude between a faithful slave and an unfaithful slave. It's actually more about the several ways that a slave might show himself to be UNfaithful. The basic idea is that it's easy to imagine how many ways a slave might show himself to be unfaithful if a master puts him in charge of the smooth operation of the household. So the important question is therefore, how will a slave prove himself to be faithful when the master is away and there are so many temptations to get away with things, especially if you don't know how long the master will be gone, and he seems to be delaying. Will food always be served on time? Will the slave let that little bit of power go to his head and start beating his fellow slaves? Will he open up all the wine for himself and start acting like a confirmed drunkard?
Just like the parable of the neighborly and un-neighborly men in the scripture about the good Samaritan, the money given to the innkeeper isn't spiritual money. The beating and the robbery that the victim received was not a spiritual robbery. It was not a spiritual inn or innkeeper. No, it was a practical example about what it means to "love your neighbor" and answer, "Who really is your neighbor?"
In the parable of the faithful and unfaithful slave, we have the same idea before us. A situation is described in practical terms so that we will all understand that we make judgments every day about how we will live and what decisions we will make to prove that we are really being the sort of person who is in expectation that the master will return at any time, no matter how long the delay. It's easy for us to imagine how likely we are to fail in our assigned duties. It was very poignant for a Jewish audience to hear a story about how a Samaritan showed a more neighborly attitude than the complacent Jewish "neighbor" who ignores fellow human suffering. But Jesus taught that Christianity means doing something about the sick, homeless, those lacking clothing, the hungry and the thirsty. And like the Jewish "neighbor" we too might think we are doing enough by preaching and teaching and therefore become complacent. It's easy to imagine the appointed slave falling into trouble perhaps more easily than the others, as he lets power go to his head, or abuses his authority.
Both situations, just as we would expect of Jesus' parables, are about:  (2 Peter 3:11)  what sort of people you ought to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion,
These parables are not about actually staying up all night to keep thieves from breaking into our houses, or actual robbers beating victims, or actual stewards getting drunk or beating up fellow servants. And they are not about spiritual thieves, or spiritual robbers, or spiritual drunkards. They are circumstances to make us think about what we would do in these particular situations, and how these apply to the kingdom.
The idea of food and a house with a master who has gone away is very appropriate, but there is nothing about a small group feeding "spiritual food" to a larger group in the Bible. This was not a question about who would lead. There is nothing in the Bible about any "sole channel" other than Jesus himself. Our food, like Jesus, should be doing the will of our Father. The most important part of the parable of the slave is not about the food but about our response to the circumstance, as indicated above. This is proven, too, by the way that Mark summarizes it in Mark 13:
(Mark 13:32-37) . . .. 33 Keep looking, keep awake, for you do not know when the appointed time is. 34 It is like a man traveling abroad who left his house and gave the authority to his slaves, to each one his work, and commanded the doorkeeper to keep on the watch. 35 Keep on the watch, therefore, for you do not know when the master of the house is coming, whether late in the day or at midnight or before dawn or early in the morning, 36 in order that when he comes suddenly, he does not find you sleeping. 37 But what I say to you, I say to all: Keep on the watch.” In Mark's account there was nothing particularly important about the fact that food was involved. Mark doesn't even mention food, but focuses on the doorkeeper, and the fact that each one of the slaves was authorized to do his work. It was about whether the slaves remained obedient in their assignments, and remained watchful, in expectation of their master's return.
 

Who is more loyal?
This is a real conversation I had with a brother. He insisted I should follow some instructions in our congregation. I agreed but I also mentioned this arrangement was silly. Then, he insisted, if I were more loyal I would not think it was silly. So, I gave him one example:
One person is blind, and his master demand him: “take this envelop and deliver it in the house at the end of this road.” So, he does, helping himself with a walking stick, happy whistling while is serving his chief.
What the blind servant ignores is that the road is flanked, surrounded with deep cliffs. But as he didn’t see anything was very happy and confident.
Now. The boss orders to another employee doing the same thing, but this time the servant see perfectly the riffs. And still worst, he is afraid of heights.  But this second servant also obeys the master. This time without whistles, but swallowing saliva and sometimes closing the eyes.
Then, I asked to my interlocutor: who is more loyal?
And he insisted, “both sowed the same loyalty.” What’s the opinion of you, the reader? Who was more loyal?
A very difficult situation.
Sometimes, I putted myself in the next situation.  I am one of the men following David when he was persecuted by Saul. Then I get shocked, the anointed of Jehovah I admire give a very strange order: “let’s kill all Nabal’s house.” I immediately think this is a terrible injustice but, I ride the horse with the other 400 and obey the anointed. What a relief when Abigail stops him!
Years later I’m serving in the army under Joab. Then, my general give me strange orders from the King: Uriah must be abandoned in the middle of the fight. I think: “what, this is a murder.” But, of course, the order comes from the king anointed by Jehovah, sure the king has more information than me. Perhaps Uriah is a traitor. I feel terribly wrong, but I obey.
What I’m proposing is: if I want to be loyal, must always agree with the instructions from the “slave” class? Have I the right to think some orders, explanations, directions from these brothers are silly, sometimes completely wrong?
I follow these teachings, of course, but, please, don’t force me to always agree with them!

What if Jesus told us an illustration about, let's say, a "Good Samaritan" and we said that this didn't apply to us because we know of a specific body of elders within our organization who already identify themselves as the fulfillment of the "Good Samaritan." If that specific body of elders actually becomes known for a ministry that is very much like the good Samaritan of the parable, and they manage such a ministry on a world-wide basis and encourage others to join them and help them, then I'd have to say that they really are fulfilling the role of the "Good Samaritan." 
There would be nothing wrong with such a ministry even if (or especially if) millions of people sincerely followed them, obediently followed the lead of their instructions, displaying a combination of such charity, motivated by love of God, and combined with their confident expressions of faith that indicated that their motivation was heartfelt. There would be nothing wrong with identifying that special body of elders as the "Good Samaritan" class or group or body.
But would it be right to say that only the persons of that group of elders should be identified as the "Good Samaritan" and that Jesus had assigned this particular group of elders to that position? Would it be right to say that Jesus had only this particular group of elders in mind in a prophetic sense and that the phrase "Good Samaritan" can only refer to persons appointed into this group during a specific time period?
This might sound ridiculous, but the two parables actually provide a much closer parallel than might appear at first glance:
With respect to the good Samaritan, Jesus was answering the question:
WHO REALLY IS MY NEIGHBOR?
(Luke 10:29) . . .“Who really is my neighbor?. . .
With respect to the parable of the faithful and the unfaithful slave Jesus was answering the question:
WHO REALLY IS THE FAITHFUL AND DISCREET SLAVE?
(Luke 12:42) . . .“Who really is the faithful steward,. . . (Matthew 24:45) . . .Who really is the faithful and discreet slave. . . For some reason the Watch Tower publications now say that one of these "Who really is..." questions applies to millions of us all around the world, and the other one applies to only about seven of us: only a specific body of elders in New York. 
As I said before, however, this is simply a matter of not yet noticing the contradiction between this explanation and other passages of Scripture. This does not mean there is anything wrong with the "faithful slave" or that the "faithful slave" has turned unfaithful, because the phrase was never intended to identify a small group of seven "New York" residents in the first place. It would really be no different than if the same group had called themselves "The True Neighbor class" or "The Faithful Steward body" or "The Good Samaritan group." It doesn't mean that they don't belong in the group, or that they might even take the lead in trying to represent the group in the most effective way. It does not mean that Jehovah won't bless their endeavors either. They are trying to do the right thing in the best way that they currently understand the scripture. In time however they will probably recognize the contradiction that this understanding produces against several other passages of scripture. This has happened with many other understandings. It's simply a matter of context and conformity with ALL the scriptures on the particular subject.
I'd say that the Watchtower has already come very close to dealing with one of the contradictions, and their conclusion apparently led them to the right answer, in spite of the contradiction. Therefore, this one contradiction was already noticed, but this was not enough yet to overturn the entire entrenched teaching. At least it digs around it a bit. The following Watchtower paragraph deals with the idea that this particular "faithful slave" will become entitled to a greater reward than the rest of the "domestics" whom they were serving. This is the obvious implication of Jesus' parable, yet those who formulated this latest interpretation also realize that it would be a mistake to interpret it in the same way that Jesus implied. It would produce too strong a contradiction with other passages:
*** w13 7/15 p. 25 par. 19 “Who Really Is the Faithful and Discreet Slave?” *** Does the faithful slave receive a greater reward in heaven than the rest of the anointed? No. A reward promised to a small group in one setting may ultimately be shared by others. For example, consider what Jesus said to his 11 faithful apostles the night before he died. (Read Luke 22:28-30.) Jesus promised that small group of men that a fine reward awaited them for their faithfulness. They would share his throne of kingly authority. But years later, he indicated that all of the 144,000 will sit on thrones and share his rulership. (Rev. 1:1; 3:21) Similarly, as stated at Matthew 24:47, he promised that a small group of men—the anointed brothers who make up the faithful slave—will be appointed over all his belongings. In reality, all of the 144,000 will share his vast heavenly authority.—Rev. 20:4, 6. So what we end up with is this: a small group of men prove faithful until Jesus returns and this particular slave therefore is rewarded with an appointment over ALL the master's belongings. If Jesus returned tomorrow, then these seven elders who make up the Governing Body would therefore be expected to receive a reward much greater than any reward promised to the domestics whom they were serving. The contradiction required an explanation. The explanation correctly shows that there is NO special reward that these 7 elders receive that is any different from 143,993 others who were also included in the domestics. The only explanation is that all of the 144,000 get the EXACT same reward, instead of what Jesus indicates. What the writers hadn't noticed is that the contradiction doesn't need to be rationalized away, because there is no contradiction if we change the premise by accepting the explanation of Matthew 24 that we find in 1 Peter and 2 Peter.
 

I get it. But it was very possible to read what you had written about Korah and tie it, in principle, to the actions of the Governing Body in presenting themselves as "the sole channel." Reading your words very literally could give the impression that the Governing Body was like Korah in the sense that they were not satisfied with the idea that Jesus alone is the "sole channel." It was not clear where the "sadness" came from when you said: "Sadly, the real rub here is around the fact that the Governing Body has presented themselves as "the faithful and discreet slave", the sole channel for the dispensing of spiritual food in these last days."
I understand that you have not changed your previously expressed opinions about this, and that you are here clarifying that you believe the Governing Body is the "sole channel." Still, I think that we should admit that there are a lot of weaknesses in this position from a Biblical standpoint. One obvious weakness was that, for well nigh 100 years, this idea was never known to the persons who now claim that they were that "sole channel." All those years, this supposed "sole channel" didn't know who they were until just a few months ago, and had therefore been teaching incorrect doctrine about who the "faithful slave" was for these last "100 years."
As you said, it was a "principal aspect" of this shepherding arrangement, and yet the "sole channel" couldn't teach the correct doctrine about a supposed "principal aspect."
For me, Jesus is the sole channel, and the Governing Body is simply a body of elders making the types of decisions that elders should make over a congregation. In this case it's not a specific local congregation, but the collection of all congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses, i.e., the overall congregation. Paul could have stayed in a specific, local congregation and remained a part of its body of elders, but his ministry called for a different kind of "shepherding" over many congregations, and this often presented the need to make logistical arrangements for his own travels and the appointment of others to travel to these congregations. He often had to make corrections either in writing or in person that were sometimes doctrinal in nature, sometimes financial, and sometimes dealing with "personnel" and personality conflicts. Overall, his purpose toward the overall congregation was the same as elders who presided over local congregations: encouragement, practical application of Jehovah's principles, preaching the good news about Jesus and his heavenly kingdom, and taking the lead by setting a good example for others.
So, as I've said before, I see a lot of value in a body of elders who take on this type of leadership responsibility toward the congregation overall. Elders are appointed for both their personal qualifications and, of course, their spiritual qualifications. By their examples they are leading us, and we should be obedient to that example -- just the same as we look to elders as examples in the local congregation. But there is nothing in the Bible about the body of elders who serve the overall congregation determining doctrines and teachings for the other congregations. I know that people will quickly point to the council at Jerusalem found in Acts 15, but this could very nearly prove the opposite point, as Paul seems to point out in Galatians, and as Fred Franz pointed out in a talk he gave back in 1975. (Ironically, Franz was the most respected member of this "sole channel" at the time when he argued against our current view of the "Governing Body.")
I believe that the Bible clearly proves that this slave is made up of the entire body of Christians. Therefore in the Biblical sense of the "slave" I would agree with what you just said, although I prefer an adjustment to the last portion of what you said here, though. During the days of Paul and the Jerusalem council, the holy spirit had not yet produced what we now know as the completed Christian Greek Scriptures, or New Testament. I think that the very purpose of building on a foundation of apostles and prophets from the first century was to produce inspired writings that reveal to us the "spirit of Christ." The Bible (Jehovah's Word, and through it, "the spirit of Christ") is intervening and directing the congregation at all times, not merely when absolutely necessary. 
The many proofs that, in the last days, all Christians are supposed to be "the faithful slave" or "faithful steward" are found throughout the scriptures. Here's one that gets right to the point.
(1 Peter 4:7-11) 7 But the end of all things has drawn close. Be sound in mind, therefore, and be vigilant with a view to prayers. 8 Above all things, have intense love for one another, because love covers a multitude of sins. 9 Be hospitable to one another without grumbling. 10 In proportion as each one has received a gift, use it in ministering to one another as fine stewards of God’s undeserved kindness expressed in various ways. 11 If anyone speaks, [let him speak] as it were [the] sacred pronouncements of God; if anyone ministers, [let him minister] as dependent on the strength that God supplies. . .
A separate point in the above quote from 1 Peter is that all of us are responsible to serve "spiritual food" in the sense that all of us are to speak as if we are responsible for the sacred pronouncements of God. Never is there a hint that we are dependent on any group of men for these pronouncements.
(Galatians 6:2-6) 2 Go on carrying the burdens of one another, and in this way you will fulfill the law of the Christ. 3 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. 6 Moreover, let anyone who is being taught the word share in all good things with the one who gives such teaching.
Therefore, anyone who gives teaching is merely sharing with all the others who give teaching. No one should believe that our (or their) particular teaching is something that another person should "bear." That would be the same as thinking that our teaching carries with it some "authority" when all authority was given to Christ. If any of us thinks that our authority, or the authority of our particular teaching should in any way "govern" another person, then we have done exactly what Jesus warned against when he gave a parable about a faithful slave who 'lords it over' his fellow slaves.
Therefore, I think that the parable of the faithful slave itself is another good place where we find evidence that there should never be any kind of "Governing Body" trying to identify itself as "the faithful and discreet slave." Any attempt to make such an identification is unfaithful and indiscreet. It's exactly that kind of presumptuousness that Jesus spoke of when he said:
(Matthew 23:6-12) . . . . 6 They like the most prominent place at evening meals and the front seats in the synagogues 7 and the greetings in the marketplaces and to be called Rabbi by men. 8 But you, do not you be called Rabbi, for one is your Teacher, and all of you are brothers. 9 Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One. 10 Neither be called leaders, for your Leader is one, the Christ. 11 But the greatest one among you must be your minister. 12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
The specific example that Jesus was using here were the Scribes and Pharisees, about whom Jesus said had done the following:
(Matthew 23:2) “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the seat of Moses."
The Jewish legal system was understood in Jesus' day to have a need for such persons in the "seat of Moses." But the Christian system was to be different. There would be no "seat of Moses" because all of us would be servants to one another. There would be no governing leader except one, the Christ. It was this Biblical rationale, of course, that led me to think that perhaps you really had realized where the "sadness" came from in your reference to Numbers 16, where Korah and others had wanted to put themselves in the seat of Moses, so that they could count themselves in that "sole channel."

So you are saying that he is happy with the way the wt handles child abuse?
He is/was happy with those people who died from not having organ transplants? 
This has not and cannot be proven whom he has appointed for anything, yet. No where in the Bible does God speak out and establish a governing body to do anything. 
 
 
question:
Answer:
 

(Numbers 16:1-3) 16 Then Korʹah the son of Izʹhar, the son of Koʹhath, the son of Leʹvi, got up together with Daʹthan and A·biʹram the sons of E·liʹab, and On the son of Peʹleth, of the sons of Reuʹben. 2 They rose up against Moses along with 250 Israelite men, chieftains of the assembly, chosen ones of the congregation, prominent men. 3 So they gathered together against Moses and Aaron and said to them: “We have had enough of you! The whole assembly is holy, all of them, and Jehovah is in their midst. Why, then, should you exalt yourselves above the congregation of Jehovah?”
Eoin, You are evidently presenting one of two ideas:
1. Are you saying that Moses pictures the Governing Body and those who speak against the Governing Body as being the sole channel for dispensing spiritual food in these last days are like Korah?
2. Are you saying that Moses pictures Jesus as the sole channel for dispensing truth in these last days, and that the Governing Body is like Korah for wanting to set themselves up as an additional sole channel for dispensing spiritual food?

I completely agree with you and your thinking, but is that what has been done thus far? I mean, to proclaim something as dogmatic then to reverse oneself over blood,blood fractions, the resurrection of Adan and Eve, when the "faithful and discreet slave" was appointed over whatnot.  
Can it really be tested? I mean, in the examples above, if you disagree with certain things the "infallible" gb says, what happens to you? Lets say you don't agree with their blood stance? You need it and take it, what happens to you? you didn't agree then and you don't now......I guess you are just not a jw, right? Disfellowshipped, shuned, etc.  if you do not adhere to what the "slave" says, then you are an outsider.....even though they admit not being perfect in their interpretation of scripture. that's not testing.....that's tyranny. 

I believe this only makes sense from a human perspective.
 
Is Jesus flawed? Is he not Truth? “I am the Way, the Truth, the Life” John 14:6
If he is Truth, would anything coming from Christ be flawed or half-truth, or imperfect, or misleading? All that Jesus has, and is, comes from God.
“I and the Father are one.” John 10:30
 
Is God flawed?
 
“He is the Rock, his works are perfect,
and all his ways are just.
A faithful God who does no wrong,
upright and just is he.” Deut 32:4
 
“Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.” James 1:17
 
The scriptures give us the answer; men make excuses to cover the motives behind their actions.
 
“For I know this, that after my departure SAVAGE WOLVES WILL COME IN AMONG YOU, not sparing the flock.”
We can see that these appear among the congregations, AND ARE ANOINTED ONES as verse 30 shows:
Also FROM AMONG YOURSELVES men will rise up, speaking perverse things, TO DRAW AWAY THE DISCIPLES AFTER THEMSELVES. Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears.” Acts 20:29-31
 
As Witnesses try to juggle with the above two conflicting statements, 2 Cor 11:3,4 sheds light on where JWs place their devotion, which undoubtedly is the GB and the organization.
 
“But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 
For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough."
 
By the GB stating that Jesus didn’t promise perfect spiritual food, they are preaching a Jesus other than the Jesus preached by the apostles, thus drawing away, those who accept the GB’s flawed teaching, to follow “after themselves”.
 
Jehovah’s Witnesses, why do you put up with it?  Rely on the scriptures, Anna, not on man's excuses. Isa 2:22
 
The rest of John 14:6 – “No one comes to the Father except through me.”
 
WOLVES IN SHEEP'S COVERING: http://4womaninthewilderness.blogspot.com/…/wolves-in-sheep…

Just thought. To see something, about something, connected to this "Jew group" (in spiritual or literal way) we need, i suppose, opening/overture of observer mind (observer who know what he is searching, looking for, or we can talk also perhaps about some ignorant person, who is, because of divine power will, in position to see important thing, despite his position) by divine power.
Divine power, i guess, is holy spirit, who make it possible that some person can see something. In such situation  we can talk about "inspiration from above", and a harmonized action and interaction of "two earthly elements - observer and Jew", under influence of/from Heaven. 
Here we can see some literal, physical products/fruits of, as Bible explains, holy spirit. Does observer of this fruits need to be inspired (in other words, does god need to open his eyes) to be able to see fruits? Or, natural state of mind and heart is precondition to recognize (or to not recognize) the Jew who produce such fruits as prove that he is this sort of Jew?
 
Do they (JW members or other believers) consider themselves as "fishes" who are already chosen as good fishes, because they found and hold of true Jew hem? Or this separation, made by angels, is applied for all fishes, because net is one, and it was throwing, had thrown, will be throwing on all? 

This is the stereotypical Snowflake reaction of someone for whom CONTROL is more important that Truth and relating experiences, wherever the conversation might lead.
It hurts Snowflakes feelings when no one will pay attention to the agenda.
That's how computers work, but human minds, in love with freedom,  wander afield. 
That's why we make them, and they do not make us.

Just thought. To see something, about something, connected to this "Jew group" (in spiritual or literal way) we need, i suppose, opening/overture of observer mind (observer who know what he is searching, looking for, or we can talk also perhaps about some ignorant person, who is, because of divine power will, in position to see important thing, despite his position) by divine power.
Divine power, i guess, is holy spirit, who make it possible that some person can see something. In such situation  we can talk about "inspiration from above", and a harmonized action and interaction of "two earthly elements - observer and Jew", under influence of/from Heaven. 
Here we can see some literal, physical products/fruits of, as Bible explains, holy spirit. Does observer of this fruits need to be inspired (in other words, does god need to open his eyes) to be able to see fruits? Or, natural state of mind and heart is precondition to recognize (or to not recognize) the Jew who produce such fruits as prove that he is this sort of Jew?
 
Do they (JW members or other believers) consider themselves as "fishes" who are already chosen as good fishes, because they found and hold of true Jew hem? Or this separation, made by angels, is applied for all fishes, because net is one, and it was throwing, had thrown, will be throwing on all? 

Just thought. To see something, about something, connected to this "Jew group" (in spiritual or literal way) we need, i suppose, opening/overture of observer mind (observer who know what he is searching, looking for, or we can talk also perhaps about some ignorant person, who is, because of divine power will, in position to see important thing, despite his position) by divine power.
Divine power, i guess, is holy spirit, who make it possible that some person can see something. In such situation  we can talk about "inspiration from above", and a harmonized action and interaction of "two earthly elements - observer and Jew", under influence of/from Heaven. 
Here we can see some literal, physical products/fruits of, as Bible explains, holy spirit. Does observer of this fruits need to be inspired (in other words, does god need to open his eyes) to be able to see fruits? Or, natural state of mind and heart is precondition to recognize (or to not recognize) the Jew who produce such fruits as prove that he is this sort of Jew?
 
Do they (JW members or other believers) consider themselves as "fishes" who are already chosen as good fishes, because they found and hold of true Jew hem? Or this separation, made by angels, is applied for all fishes, because net is one, and it was throwing, had thrown, will be throwing on all? 

@JW Insider in a nutshell it seems to me you are saying that JW Org /Watchtower Soc' are no better than any other religion, and can be seen to be no better.
JW's are volunteers, except for JW children of course. Hence I think baptism should not be until an 'adult' age. Then every real baptised JW would be a volunteer. People in the world are not volunteers. They are born into the world. So I see no point comparing JW's with people of the world. 
Quote "I thought there had not been any cases of CSA in any congregation I had personally been in, .. "  
But how would you know unless you are an Elder ? It's not announced from the platform is it. 
Quote "I've seen a lot of love and long-lasting friendships.. "
I go to classic car shows and automobilia auctions (which I'm involved in setting up ) and there are people there who have known each other for a 'lifetime' and have love and friendship amongst their fellow 'kinsmen'. 
YE olde JW's talk as though all the world is killing each other or on drugs and having multiple sex partners and orgies. Children in the JW Org are taught that everyone outside the Org serves the Devil. And the Armageddon pictures just to frighten people. 
And all people that leave the Org ' have gone back to' the 'ways of the world' which are wicked. I laugh at it all but it's not really funny. The Org lives on scaremongering. And I've said it before (but according to TTH it never happens) congregants are frightened of the Elders. Frightened of being reproved for the least little thing, whilst the Elders get away with much bigger things. 
Quote " at a recent funeral of a local elder when several tales of his abuse were exposed by family members.. "
Does this mean He abused others or He was abused by others ? 
Quote "But this is far from the norm.. " How do you know that ? It may be far from the norn where you are but I'm talking Earthwide. 
Enough, 11.30 am here in England. Coffee break, I'll even ask my wife if she wants coffee too :)  

Are you concerned that the Sermon of Srecko did not make the cut?

I've seen a lot of love and long-lasting friendships. I've seen some awful things too, and heard about many more. But the congregations I have been in over many years (from age 0 to 66) have had very few of these problems.
I thought there had not been any cases of CSA in any congregation I had personally been in, but there was a huge commotion at a recent funeral of a local elder when several tales of his abuse were exposed by family members for the first time AT THE FUNERAL itself. Several (including me) were shocked and surprised.
But this is far from the norm. I've worked in the sound "A/V" booth at many assemblies/conventions since I was a teenager, and have made friends from all over the world. Then, when traveling, I have often met up with these friends. Perhaps I assume that this has been the norm for most Witnesses.
I know that there has been a trend toward more problems, although that's also just my opinion. But I hear about more problems and also see attendance down in several places.
We'd all like to see CSA eliminated from everywhere. I don't believe that we will ever be immune from problems the rest of the world has. But I'd hate to think that it's just as common with us as it is in some other religious institutions. But I don't blame the two-witness rule for the crime, but I do blame it for the slow wheels of congregational justice. And who knows? I think people like Raymond Franz had a chance to fix that part of the problem much earlier, and yet he was evidently blind to it.
I have a feeling that both CSA and shunning will both be "fixed" to the best of the organization's ability from a procedural/rules perspective within a couple of years. It will still happen, of course, but the policies will be adjusted to conform to something more loving. I heard a well known brother in a responsible position at Bethel say that there were only two things that needed to change to nearly remove all the "deserved" animus against us: our shunning policy and our blood policy. He thought both of them should be changed for scriptural reasons. I'm sure he hadn't realized how big the CSA problem would be when more fully exposed.
Local squabbling will always be a problem when brothers see titles as positions of "power" for their ego, instead of opportunities to serve one another more efficiently. I've seen a share of it, and assumed it didn't happen as much elsewhere. I was in a place to hear some yelling and screaming back in the 70's and 80's at Bethel, and a friend tells me that he thinks all the GB get along very well, but that the "helpers" have been known to squabble loudly. Perhaps some things are worth squabbling about. (and most things probably aren't) The apostle Paul speaks of such things even in his own life as a Christian.
Well, you probably know that I don't try to defend everything that's wrong, and I think that everything that's wrong should actually be exposed in the city gates. Exposure actually reduces bad behavior. I've seen it happen directly a few times. Perhaps even bad doctrines and bad decisions and bad policy can be revisited if enough people raise questions publicly. I heard a brother in the Writing Department say that he'd like to see all the things fixed right away that Raymond Franz exposed, and he lamented that some would not be easy to fix. But many of them have already, by now, been fixed.

You concluded how Pope's motive was bad. Still we have open question: Do you need to be inspired (or motivated) by God in collecting holy manuscripts/copies and in decision to make Holy Book with this collection?

You concluded how Pope's motive was bad. Still we have open question: Do you need to be inspired (or motivated) by God in collecting holy manuscripts/copies and in decision to make Holy Book with this collection?

You must be talking about the GB as the “faithful slave” sent by God.  Can you actually prove to me that God has given these men to us to follow?
Did Jesus ever lie?  If he sent anyone in his name, and told them to “remain” in him because without him they could nothing, would they lie or would they speak the Word of God, which is truth - always?    He is the way, the truth, the life.  Would those he sends teach any sort of doctrine that failed or had to be totally discarded with a new one?  How many times has doctrine flipped from one belief to another, and many times a new belief is actually one from years past, in the step of doctrinal change?  John 15:4,5; John 14:6
To say that the leaders of the WT are led by Holy Spirit calls Jesus a liar; subsequently, it calls the Almighty God, a liar.  The only one who can take a lie and soften its blow with the insulation of false promises, by calling it a “belief clarified”, is Satan, who “inspires” those who seek out his earthly gifts. 2 Cor 11:13,14
Anyone can see these things if they choose to.  It depends on one's heart’s desire to find those who speak pure truth from Christ.  Within the organization are hundreds of anointed ones who are silenced.  That should ring a bell with all JWs, that something is amiss in the Watchtower.    If one of those anointed speaks up about teachings that conflict with WT doctrine, and is heard, I guarantee they will not survive inside its walls.  That is the sign of a wicked slave in power.  Matt 24:48-51
Jesus spoke up for truth against the power and teaching of the Pharisees.  Shouldn't every one of us speak up for truth, regardless of who has placed authority over us?  
"Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. 35 For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life (through disfellowshipping) for me and for the gospel will save it.36 What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? 37 Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul? 38 If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.”  Mark 8:34-38
I am not ashamed to speak up for Christ and truth.  I, and so many others, have done so.  As scripture points out, your wicked slave cannot tolerate being called a liar.  Rev 13:11,14-17
It is a ruse, set against the anointed under the "woman" New Covenant, during these last days.  I wish all of you could see this.  Rev 12:15; 2 Thess 2:9-12;1 Thess 5:3   
Matt 13:36-43
 
 

How many times have some of us cut off a bruised section of, let’s say an apple, and still enjoyed eating the rest? We know that normally a small bruise doesn’t affect the taste of the apple.    The other day, I had one apple left of any fruit available; one which was clean of bruises, but was just beginning to rot.  I knew this, but felt I could cut off the soft brown blemish and eat the rest, just as I had done with a bruise.  Upon cutting, I could see the rot had traveled into the core, but I diligently scored out the discolored tissue with the hope of enjoying what remained.  The first bite told the story of bitter rottenness.  The unpleasant taste had traveled well through the apple; and yet, I made sure I ate as much as I normally would, all the while questioning why I pushed myself to eat such a terrible tasting piece of fruit.    
Well, I’ll not be doing that again…ever. When an apple begins to rot, fungus has made its way into the flesh through a puncture in the skin.  It can happen from contaminated water during the harvesting process; and it is true that “one bad apple spoils the whole bunch”, through the off-gassing of the hormone “ethylene”.  An apple infested with fungal mold will spread and contaminate other fruit, looking for another host to grow on; and it successfully accomplishes rotting the whole bunch, all while taking place in the dark. To ripen, an apple needs the light from the sun; to rot and decay – disease and darkness. 
It seems appropriate that trees are expressed in the Bible as the source of pure teachings, although there are those who are considered bearers of rotten fruit.  It is by their “fruit” that we recognize true or false prophets, or true or false teachers.  So, it is the anointed who are these trees outlined in the scriptures. Ps 1:1-3  Whatever their heart contains will be the nature of the “fruit” they produce and supply to their hearers.  Luke 6:43-45 
Matt 12:33-37 -  Either make the tree good and its fruit will be good, or make the tree bad and its fruit will be bad; for a tree is known by its fruit. 34 Brood of vipers! How can you speak good things when you are evil? For the mouth speaks from the overflow of the heart. 35 A good person produces good things from his storeroom of good, and an evil person produces evil things from his storeroom of evil. 36 I tell you that on the day of judgment people will have to account for every worthless word they speak. 37 For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.”
Matt 7:15-20  -  “Be on your guard against false prophets who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravaging wolves. 16 You’ll recognize them by their fruit. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes or figs from thistles?17 In the same way, every good tree produces good fruit, but a bad tree produces bad fruit. 18 A good tree can’t produce bad fruit; neither can a bad tree produce good fruit. 19 Every tree that doesn’t produce good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 So you’ll recognize them by their fruit.
Pearl Doxsey:
“Trees are only a symbol which represents, teachers.
If there were no symbolic "trees",
there would be no witnesses of God, nor offering of spiritual food (knowledge).
Each tree decides what kind of teacher they will be,
and what sort of "fruit" they will produce and offer others to "eat".
God equips them with wisdom so that they can enjoy
the happiness of giving
the knowledge of life.
But God does not force them to produce what He wishes.
Their mouth will produce fruit according to the abundance of their own heart.
(Luke 6:45; Matt 12:33-37; 7:20; Heb 13:15; John 1:1,4;8:12;12:46;Prov 11:30;10:11;3:13,18; Eph 5:8-12)


The Bible reveals that Satan's mouth, also bears "fruit"/teachings (Rev 16:13;12:15; Col2:8; 2 Cor 11:3; 1 Tim 6:20,21; Gen 3:4,5; Rev 2:24; James 3:15)
 
Just as Jesus is "the way" and his teachings are the road to life; Satan's deceptions are the road which leads to destruction (2 Thess 2:9,10; Matt 7:13; Rev 12:9). All of Satan's teachings/"fruit" are lies, darkness, error/sin, and they lead to death John 8:44; Heb 2:14; James 1:15. To take in such teachings is to be deceived. Eve herself obtained this falsely-called knowledge (Gen 3:13; 1 Tim 6:20; James 3:15) which resulted in her death (Rom 5:12; Gen 2:17). 
(From “Two Trees”, 4womaninthewilderness)
Dear JWs, the phrase, “new light” which is assigned to new Watchtower teachings, is a twist of scripture to hide the rotten blemishes on the “fruit” your “trees” have produced for over a century. (to get a more comprehensive understanding of Prov 4:18 , read Prov 4:10-19)  The “new” apple looks perfect at first glance, until you take the time to examine it thoroughly and find the beginning evidence of decay.  You have a choice not to eat rotten “fruit; in fact, Jesus expects you to examine all teachings by anointed ones. It is only men who expect you to gratefully accept their time-tested rotten offerings.   2 Cor 11:19,20; Rev 13:11,14-17  From what many of us have experienced, we realize the majority of Watchtower’s teachings are rotten to the “core” of its existence. If you have not done so, I hope you search for the list of failed dates of Armageddon’s arrival, which affected other time-table dates and doctrine associated with them, such as the meaning of “this generation”.  1 John 4:1  
Can you imagine Jesus offering “fruit” with any source of disease or blemish to his listeners, while he was on the earth? James 3:17
He told his disciples:  “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—FRUIT THAT WILL LAST—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you.”  John 15:16
Would this be possible without the light of life from the Son?  John 1:1,4;8:12  
 “For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light— 9 for the fruit of the light consists of all goodness, righteousness, and truth -  10 testing what is pleasing to the Lord. 11 Don’t participate in the fruitless works of darkness, but instead expose them. 12 For it is shameful even to mention what is done by them in secret.  Eph 5:8-12
JWs, would you say your leaders’ “fruit” concerning the many historical changes to “this generation” ripened in the light of Christ, or did each new version emerge from the same diseased bunch, harboring mold in some dark WT cellar? It is a fact that many fruitless, worthless teachings have been tossed out by the organization. Titus 1:15,16  Will there be more?  The Bible states “Wormwood’s” waters contaminate true teachings and mislead many with a corrupted form of “nourishing food”. Heb 12:15; Rev 8:10,11;16:13   Please, put the pieces together; through my own experience, I perceived that what they offer you as “good fruit” is already riddled with disease, spawned in the dark recesses of evil men’s hearts.  Isa 28:14,15,7,8; Eph 2:1-3 
1 Tim 6:20,21:  “Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding irreverent and empty speech and contradictions from what is falsely called knowledge. 21 By professing it, some people have departed from the faith.”
2 Thess 2:9,10:  “The coming of the lawless one is based on Satan’s working, with all kinds of false miracles, signs, and wonders,10 and with every wicked deception among those who are perishing. They perish because they did not accept the love of the truth and so be saved.”
 
Consider Pearl Doxsey’s article  – “Wormwood/The False Prophet/Armageddon”, 4womaninthewilderness
 
 
 

You can't fix stupid ... even with Duct Tape ... BUT WITH DUCT TAPE YOU CAN MUFFLE THE SOUND !