Foreigner

Very true. Just as 1 John 4:1 indicates, too. The idea that we might question a spokesperson for God obviously doesn't sit well with some. But it reminds me of a couple more Russell claims that he published about himself. Some were alluded to by BTK above, but I agree that we need to keep the context in mind.
I'm sure you've seen these before. One of them appears in every "opposition" book on Russell, of course. But that doesn't mean he didn't write it. Another one was written by others, but Russell knew, quoted from, and expressed approval for these Convention Reports.
"No, the truths I present, as God's mouthpiece, were not revealed in visions or dreams, nor by God's audible voice, nor all at once, but gradually, especially since 1870, and particularly since 1880. Neither is this clear unfolding of truth due to any human ingenuity or acuteness of perception, but to the simple fact that God's due time has come; and if I did not speak, and no other agent could be found, the very stones would cry out.  -- Watch Tower July 15, 1906, p. 230
"We have FAITH that the Lord has returned . . .  that HE has placed Pastor Russell in charge of the work this side the vail. We are glad therefore to recognize him as “that servant”, spoken of by the Lord; glad to recognize that the work he is doing is the work the Lord appointed him to do . . . . a 'Paul' -- one who is doing a work in this end of the Gospel age, similar to the work the Apostle did at the beginning of the age.” -- Foreword of the 1911 Convention Report
And that 1910 Watch Tower that BTK mentioned:
If, then, the Lord has provided us with something in our
day that other days than those of the Apostles knew nothing
about, no matter how good nor how wise they were-for us to
ignore the line of teaching which has been thus developed
would be, in our judgment, to ignore the Lord's providences.
It is for each one to think for himself, however, and to guide
his conduct in every way accordingly.
If the six volumes of SCRIPTURE STUDIES are practically
the Bible topically arranged, with Bible proof-texts given, we
might not improperly name the volumes-the Bible in an
arranged form. That is to say, they are not merely comments
on the Bible, but they are practically the Bible itself, since
there is no desire to build any doctrine or thought on any
individual preference or on any individual wisdom, but to
present the entire matter on the lines of the Word of God. We
therefore think it safe to follow this kind of reading, this kind
of instruction, this kind of Bible study.
Furthermore, not only do we find that people cannot see
the divine plan in studying the Bible by itself, but we see, also,
that if anyone lays the SCRIPTURE STUDIES aside, even after he
has used them, after he has become familiar with them, after
he has read them for ten years--if he then lays them aside and
ignores them and goes to the Bible alone, though he has under-
stood his Bible for ten years, our experience shows that within
two years he goes into darkness. On the other hand, if he had
merely read the SCRIPTURE STUDIES with their references, and
had not read a page of the Bible, as such, he would be in the
light at the end of the two years, because he would have the
light of the Scriptures.

@Anna. you comment is soooooooooooooo funny. 
First point. And this is funny.  Quote "who all err and make mistakes." 
So you are agreeing with me that to 'err' is not a mistake but a deliberate wrongdoing. Because you say, err AND make mistakes. 
 Surely complete trust/confidence only belongs to God.
I would include Jesus Christ as he has been given the power and authority, and he will be doing the judging.. 
The GB cannot ensure our salvation, 
No, but didn't the Watchtower used to say that a person had to be part of the JW / W/t org/soc to gain salvation ?
The Insight book says this in part regarding true and false prophets:  “The true prophet would speak in Jehovah’s name; the things foretold would come to pass....
Well that knocks the Bible Students and JW Org / GB / W/t on the head then doesn't it.  
Rather, he was an advocate of righteousness, and his message dealt primarily with moral standards and their application. He expressed God’s mind on matters.
This didn't work with CSA in the JW Org did it ? MORAL STANDARDS. I don't think so. 
 If his message contradicted God’s revealed will and standards, he was false".
Well we have both of those in JW Org. The standards are low and predictions are false. The GB falsely call themselves the F&DS. 
Now this bit is almost clever, Quote Anna Starts with 'The true prophet', then she moves on to  'the prophet/spokesperson/GB' but finally she moves on to ' the prophet/GB/FDS. 
How sly is that. A perfect JW way to twist things. Start with a true prophet and end with the GB/F&DS. 
Personally, I find nothing wrong with speculation, as long as it is not presented as fact.
Yes the speculation about 1975 was wonderful wasn't it. And the speculation that one has to be a baptised JW to be 'saved'. And the speculation that Armageddon is 'so close now'..........
Since no one can interpret scripture without the possibility of making an error, 
That is because they are not inspired Anointed. Why would God give us His word if He would not give inspiration of holy spirit to Anointed ones to interpret it properly. Do you think God wants people to misuse scripture ?
Going beyond what is written.
Calling themselves the F&DS...............
 I think completely distrusting the GB is as unreasonable as completely trusting them.
BUT the GB say they are the F&DS and requite complete obedience. Didn't someone put up a Watchtower quote where the GB said that God and Jesus Christ trust them (the GB), so everyone else should trust them. 
Your whole comment reminds me of Mark Antony "I come to bury Caesar not to praise him". BUT your comment is very sly, almost clever, and sooo funny. 

I think he was only joking 😃

LOL. I'm sure I could remind you of a lot of things, but enough space has been wasted. Let's just stick to the facts on the topic as we know them, and avoid all the attempts at ad hominem if you can.
You point out that Russell responded to a question about "Who is that Servant?" (1909). In 1909, as you must know, there was a "secession" crisis among Watchtower readers, and the idea that Russell was allowing himself to be addressed and introduced as "That Servant" had become even more controversial.
You will also notice that Russell is careful not to deny that he is, in fact, to be identified as "That Servant" even though the question gave him every opportunity to do so.
In fact, Russell points to Volume VI of Studies in the Scriptures, which had just come out in 1904, but this book says absolutely nothing as to the identity of "That Servant" anywhere in the book. Chapter 4 mentions that as in all ages God may wish to "use some SPECIAL INSTRUMENTS for the service of the Church as a whole, as well as use certain members of each little local company." He adds that all servants should seek to share in the distribution of meat in due season, but this was always part of the teaching, from 1896 to 1926. He appears to scrupulously avoid any mention of "That Servant." Yet, unless it's true that Maria Russell wrote most of the previous Volumes (as some do claim), this was not all that Russell had written on the topic, as he claims.
We already know what was written in Studies and in the WT in 1896, 1897, 1904, 1906 (and 1911). There were also the Convention Notes from 1907 through 1914, and letters published in the WT where others addressed Russell as "That Servant." In fact a very interesting one that Russell published was in the WT of July 1910 (p.210), discussing the very 1909 "secession" controversy:
DELIVERED FROM SATAN'S SNARE
DEARLY Beloved Brother and Pastor:—I am writing to tell you how good our dear Lord has been to me in delivering me from the Power of Darkness, and restoring me to his favor again; and also to ask you to forgive me for the trial that my recent course must have caused you. . . . I opposed your teaching, though not publicly. . . .  Then I began to search for the cause of my blindness, my unbelief, and I was sure that I found it. It was the Vow! What! did I oppose the Vow? No! Had I not taken the Vow? Yes; but with limitations. . . .  my Vow expired by limitation, and the protection that it had afforded me against the suggestions of Evil Spirits was at an end. So for several months the barrier had been thrown down, as it were, and I believe Satan and his co-adjutors had seized the opportunity (Eph 6:12), with the result that my faith had been nearly shipwrecked. Dear Brother, as soon as I saw this I renewed the Vow for all time. . . .  I got to believe that you had never been "That Servant, whom the Lord made master of all his goods"—that Servant was a class; that most of those things you once had right, but you had changed. . . .  While I thought my faith was on a surer foundation than ever, I now know it was nearly gone. . . . This was the turning point with me—the day when the Lord graciously showed me my true condition—that I was growing spiritually blind. . . . The alarming truth dawned on me—I was growing spiritually blind! . . . .  I am glad to add, dear Brother, that the points of doctrine which had been a cause of stumbling to me have since become clear; the Lord has graciously healed my spiritual sight, and my heart is rejoicing in the sunlight of his favor. . . .
Your brother in Christ,
CLARENCE E. FOWLER,
Imagine! One of the main points of doctrine which had been a cause of stumbling was that he temporarily thought the FDS was just a class and not RUSSELL as an individual, which is something that Russell once had right but now had changed (just as Henninges and McPhail were now teaching). But, happily, he reports (in a part of the letter I skipped) that he burned the publications from those former brothers, Henninges and McPhail and Randall.
Also, in the April 15, 1904, (R 3356) Russell also wrote about "that servant" from the parable, and said that:
". . . the Lord at the time indicated would specially use one member of his church as the channel or instrument through which he would send the appropriate messages . . . because in various times of the past the Lord has used individuals in such a manner."

Whazzamatter TTH?
Doctor would not refill your anti-anxiety meds?

This is not a reply to anyone specifically, just some musings in response to some of the comments here.
I suppose it's not too much of an unreasonable concept to have a measure of confidence in imperfect humans, who all err and make mistakes. Without confidence in others, it would be a crazy world, even crazier than it is now and absolutely nothing would get done. Even when we have been disappointed over and over, we still check what the weatherman has to say about tomorrow's weather. I think maybe the word "complete" confidence should be omitted though when referring to any human, including the GB. Surely complete trust/confidence only belongs to God. The GB cannot ensure our salvation, only God can. (Do not put your trust in princes nor in a son of man, who cannot bring salvation Ps 146:3) We cannot question God, and quite rightly so of course. But we should be able to question a human, a prophet, or an angel for that matter. The story about the “man of the true God” in 1 Kings ch.13 highlights the seriousness of questioning (making sure) very well.  In Israelite times people needed to distinguish between a true prophet and a false one. There were plenty of false ones, and they were exposed by Jehovah. Today, we need to question in order to determine who is false and who is not.  (The term prophet that I am referring to is a spokesperson for God, not someone who predicts).  The Insight book says this in part regarding true and false prophets:  “The true prophet would speak in Jehovah’s name; the things foretold would come to pass (De 18:20-22); and his prophesying must promote true worship, being in harmony with God’s revealed word and commandments (De 13:1-4). The last requirement was probably the most vital and decisive, for an individual might hypocritically use God’s name, and by coincidence, his prediction might see fulfillment. But the true prophet was not solely or even primarily a prognosticator, as has been shown. Rather, he was an advocate of righteousness, and his message dealt primarily with moral standards and their application. He expressed God’s mind on matters. (Isa 1:10-20; Mic 6:1-12) Hence, it was not necessary to wait perhaps for years or generations to determine whether the prophet was true or false by fulfillment of a prediction. If his message contradicted God’s revealed will and standards, he was false".

So, we come to the crux of the matter. We should be able to question the prophet/spokesperson/GB, to make sure  that what he says does not conflict with "Jehovah’s righteous standards and mind on matters" as was verified by Geoffrey Jackson in his "if we gave wrong direction, then everyone who has the Bible would see that it was the wrong direction"  statement.
So unquestioning obedience and "complete" trust, in my opinion, are not the right choice of words to use in connection with the GB.
 
And this is the primary reason for the topic, not to suspiciously distrust the GB, but to remind ourselves, by discussing the topic in depth, that there are boundaries and stipulations that have to be met before we can have confidence in, and/or obey any single expression made by the prophet/GB/FDS. And these boundaries and stipulations are set by Jehovah himself.
Personally, I find nothing wrong with speculation, as long as it is not presented as fact.

Going beyond what is written. This happens when an interpretation is applied to any seemingly ambiguous scripture. Where to find the balance? Since no one can interpret scripture without the possibility of making an error, how about only sticking to what is completely clear, (besides not conflicting with other scriptures), and admitting anything else is speculation.  That would be a good start. I have no qualms telling anyone who wants to know my opinion on the revised understanding of the “generation”,  that I believe it is speculative, and may or may not be true,  and that we will know the true answer probably not until after Armageddon......
In saying all this, I do not think that the reasons for distrusting the GB that have been posted here by some are valid enough reasons. I think completely distrusting the GB is as unreasonable as completely trusting them.
 

Billy, do you realize the economic opportunity you are missing here?  If you can arrange it to have a massive stroke in mid sentence, while typing, that is worth some serious money!
As a suspected Watchtower Lawyer that should appeal to you on a basic DNA level.

If Russell didn't want to be seen as the "faithful and wise servant" then why admit that he was the "faithful and wise servant" privately? Why didn't he say something to stop thousands of other people from saying it? Why would he publish letters in his Watch Tower magazine that addressed him as "That Servant"? Why would he allow himself to be addressed this way year after year in the Watch Tower's Bible Student Conventions and addressed this way in the Convention Souvenir Notes, without saying something?
Only about 30 days after he died, the Watchtower claimed that THOUSANDS of people saw him as 'That Servant, Faithful and Wise.' You'd think that Russell would have said something if he didn't want all these thousands of people saying this during his lifetime.
And do you think he thought that no one would see "That Servant" as Russell himself, when he wrote an article indicating that "modesty" was what had kept him from interpreting "that servant" as a singular individual, but that he would be saying the Holy Spirit was in error if he kept saying that it was the entire (plural) household of faith. In 1896 (page R1946), while not making the application directly yet, Russell presented the following article:
"THAT SERVANT."
—MARCH 22.—Luke 12:37-48; Matt. 24:42-51.—
THIS lesson, from Matthew's account (Matt. 24:42-51), was treated in our issue of April 1, '95. We have no further comment to make except upon one point: "that [special] servant." In our examination of this text we seem to have treated the term "that servant" as though the Spirit had erred in saying "that servant" when it meant servants (plural), and we applied it to all true servants of God. Since then we have been met from various quarters with objections to so general an application, and the suggestion that it would be wrong to allow modesty or any other consideration, good or bad, to warp our judgment in the exposition of the inspired Word; to which proposition we agree. God evidently has some purpose in all that he has caused to be written for our admonition; and faithfulness as servants requires that we deliver to the household the Lord's word, as he gives it.
Being unable to answer the objections and arguments raised, we candidly present them to the "fellow-servants" and to the "household" of faith as part of the Lord's message: the subject being forced upon us by its recurrence in the International S.S. Lessons, as well as by inquiries by letter. Let each "fellow servant" and each member of the "household of faith" use his consecrated judgment in accepting or rejecting this exposition, or any other exposition we may ever offer, according to his ability or inability to recognize in it the voice of our great Shepherd.
The objection urged is that the Lord's words clearly mention and distinguish between his "household" (his faithful people in general), the "fellow servants" (plural), and "that servant" specially indicated as the Lord's agent in dispensing present truth as food to his "fellow servants" and the "household." It is admitted that in many Scriptures the consecrated are addressed individually when all of a class are meant,—as, for instance, "To him that overcometh I will grant to sit with me in my throne." This, according to the rules of language, means—"To each one who overcomes," etc. And in the texts under consideration, it is held that if neither the "household" nor "fellow servants" were mentioned, it might be questionable whether the expression "that servant" referred to one or to all faithful servants; but that when "that servant" and "his fellow servants" and the "household" are all mentioned in one connection, and in contrast, it would be a perversion of the rules of language and interpretation to mix and confound that which the holy spirit has so emphatically marked as distinct. It is further urged that to apply the term "his household" to nominal Christian professors in general could not be correct, because the "meat in due season" is intended only for the Lord's truth-hungry, "watching" people; and hence among these must be sought the "household" to be fed, the "servants" (plural) to do the feeding, and "that servant" at whose hands our present Lord will dispense the food to "his fellow servants" for "the household;" and who thus is constituted a general steward, overseer and dispenser of the Lord's "goods."
It is urged, further, that the manifest fulfilment of this, during this "harvest" and time of the Lord's presence, should assist in the correct understanding of the promise; and that when we see things come to pass we should be able to recognize them whether we discerned their meaning in advance or not. Indeed, the demonstration seems to have forced the true interpretation, rather than that an interpretation led to the fulfilment;—which makes the matter really the stronger, now that it is seen. . . .
We submit the argument without comment.
For someone who submitted the argument "without comment" and "with no further comment," he sure went to a lot of trouble to show why he agreed with it, and why it was the undeniable and correct argument.
Whose modesty do you think he was talking about when he said he would only present the argument, but couldn't himself comment on it? The answer, of course, appeared in that December 1, 1916 Watch Tower, that came out just about 30 days after Russell died.
Thousands of the readers of Pastor Russell's writings believed that he filled the office of "that faithful and wise servant," . . . . His modesty and humility precluded him from openly claiming this title, but he admitted as much in private conversation. (R 5998)
And of course, Rutherford immediately made more statements to that effect all through 1917. For example:
"All of us realize . . . our dear Brother Russell . . . as 'that servant'." (January 15, 1917, R 6035)
". . . the Lord send through his chosen servant. THE WATCH TOWER unhesitatingly proclaims Brother Russell as 'that faithful and wise servant.' " (March 1, 1917, R 6049)
"The two most prominent messengers, however, are the first and the last--St. Paul and Pastor Russell . . ." (Nov 1, 1917, R 6159)
"Recognizing Brother Russell as the Lord's messenger to the Laodicean church and as the Lord's chosen servant . . . " (Dec 1, 1917, R 6181)
At Russell's funeral, Rutherford even acknowledged that people would come from afar to "worship" Rusell. (His words, not mine.)
"Charles Taze Russell, thou hast by the Lord, been crowned a king, and through the everlasting ages thy name shall be known amongst the people, and thy enemies shall come and worship at thy feet."
Some of these items were already brought up here at the following link and probably elsewhere, too: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/forums/topic/47934-charles-taze-russell-was-he-recently-canonized/
 

My next project (though I am distracted by nearly anything) is not to write another fine book, but to put my existing ones in audio version, starting with Dear Mr. Putin - Jehovah’s Witnesses Write Russia. Unlike the ebook versions of two of them, these will not be free, therefore perhaps @JOHN BUTLER‘s dream of my being a millionaire is not so far off.
There are still numerous little punctuation inconsistencies and minor typos in the book and I am steadily correcting all of them in the manuscript, to release a corrected version all at once. I may just have to accept that I will never be wholly consistent on single quotes and double quotes, mostly due to a lack of self-discipline. “I may not know art, but I know what I like.”
There is also a travel book coming up, which will include my typical musings and meandering, finding ways to insert scripture where you wouldn’t think they would fit, as well as some history. Tentatively, it is titled, ‘Go Where Tom Goes (Think What Tom Thinks)’ The travel book will be modest in scope because I don’t go to many places.
Get your order in quick, Billy

I apologize if you think it makes me seem intelligent to some. That's not the intention. It's really more like you said here:
Which reminds me that I never actually addressed the idea where you claim that Russell never claimed to be the equivalent of the FDS.
Curiously, this can also be discovered through "what was written" as found in another footnote in the same book I mentioned previously.
The "Divine Purpose" book (dp) makes the following statement on page 63:

But then it unfortunately quotes from that same biography that the WTS supposedly never published. It's even mentioned in the index:

On page 17, a footnote shows how that Biography was published. It was a special addition made to new editions of Studies in the Scriptures, updated in the 1926 edition.

I bring it up because, if we read what was there named, "The Biography of Charles Taze Russell" we find the following:
Thousands of the readers of Pastor Russell’s writings
believe that he filled the office of “that faithful and wise servant,” and that his great
work was giving to the Household of Faith meat in due season. His modesty and
humility precluded him from openly claiming this title, but he admitted as much in
private conversation.
So, if the Watch Tower publications, published by the Governing Body after 1919, are to be believed here, then Russell admitted that he filled the office of "that faithful and wise servant."

Do you have any new orders for me, o wise one, JWI?
Sheesh.

You know what i mean.
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"
I heard the wt baptizes people into the name of the "organisation"

Smart Aleck! 😂 😂

Of course! Everything I write here is opinion. Even the part you evidently agreed with. 😊

I already pointed out that you made the mistake of pointing to a Watch Tower from 1880, when Russell hadn't begun pushing the change that made himself the FDS until 1896 and 1897.
Oddly enough, the Watchtower publications made this same mistake:
*** ka chap. 17 pp. 345-346 pars. 30-31 The “Slave” Who Lived to See the “Sign” ***
This studious Christian took note of Jesus’ illustration of the “faithful and wise servant” (Matthew 24:45, Authorized Version) and published his understanding of it in the Watch Tower issue of November, 1881, page 5. In the fourth- and fifth-last paragraphs of the article “In the Vineyard,” he said:
We believe that every member of this body of Christ is engaged in the blessed work, either directly or indirectly, of giving meat in due season to the household of faith. “Who then is that faithful and wise servant whom his Lord hath made ruler over his household,” to give them meat in due season? Is it not that “little flock” of consecrated servants who are faithfully carrying out their consecration vows—the body of Christ—and is not the whole body individually and collectively, giving the meat in due season to the household of faith—the great company of believers?
Blessed is that servant (the whole body of Christ) whom his Lord when he has come (Gr. elthon) shall find so doing. “Verily, I say unto you, that he shall make him ruler over all his goods.” “He shall inherit all things.”
31 From this it is clearly seen that the editor and publisher of Zion’s Watch Tower disavowed any claim to being individually, in his person, that “faithful and wise servant.” He never did claim to be such.*" However, he did continue to edit the Watch Tower magazine down to the day of his death on October 31, 1916.
Notice how they are using an 1881 Watch Tower and apparently disingenuously implying that "He never did claim to be such" and then immediately "sweeping" away the opposite history down to 1916. But if you look closely, you'll see that there is a little asterisk after the term "He never did claim to be such.*" If you have the original book, or check the WOL.jw.org, or the Watchtower Library CD you can see that this asterisk points to the following:
*** ka chap. 17 The “Slave” Who Lived to See the “Sign” ***
[Footnotes]
See the book The Battle of Armageddon, published in 1897, page 613, under the heading “Dispensing of Food to the Household.—Matt. 24:45-51; Luke 12:42-46.”
If you looked up the footnote, you would have seen that this was the first major place where it was claimed that Jesus would choose a specific, single channel referred to as "he" to dispense "meat in due season" and then compared with the plural "channels" or plural "fellow servants" to be used in bringing the food to the "household." This followed on the previous Watchtower that also showed it no longer referred to a class.
In fact, if you had worked with the proofreaders and researchers at Bethel just prior to this book being rechecked for another printing in 1980 you might have known that this asterisk was a carryover from the book "Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose." Discussing the same subject, that book also quoted the 1881 Watch Tower:

But then notice the next point, which is quite different than the impression given by the "Kingdom Approached" book.

In this case, the earlier book discusses the problems of the cult that had developed around Russell, and discusses how Rutherford wanted to change this. So the footnote above, in this case, was used to show that the proper view was lost sight of, and attention was now "on an individual man.o"  And where did that little footnote point?

It was only beginning in 1897 that Russell began allowing himself to be addressed as "that servant, faithful and wise" (FDS) and referred to as the individual giving out meat in due season (food at the proper time).
The issue of so many persons 'worshiping' Russell was admitted freely in the 1959 book, "Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose." (Their word, "worship," not mine.) But the "Kingdom Approached" book didn't get into that. The much more recent "Proclaimer's" book refers to the problem, too:
*** jv chap. 6 p. 65 A Time of Testing (1914-1918) ***
Others, on account of their deep respect for Brother Russell, seemed more concerned with trying to copy his qualities and develop a sort of cult around him.

I cannot help but agree with most of your post except for the above quote. I feel this is an opinion 😃

THIS... I would pay money to see!
I have not been to a Comedy Club in 25 years.

This is not the whole truth of the matter. Exactly as I said previously, Russell taught that the household of faith was being fed by the anointed from about 1879 until about 1897. I believe the first Watchtower article claiming that the FDS was a single person or individual (and not a class of individuals) was actually published in 1896, but the primary source is the book "Battle of Armageddon" (Studies in the Scriptures Series, published 1897). He was reticent to go out and publicly proclaim that "this single individual" was he himself, even though it was already obvious to most, but he still allowed his wife to openly publicize the idea that Russell as publisher of the Watchtower, was referring to himself.
As I said:
Your supposed evidence was a quote from an 1880 Watchtower which was obviously from within the period that included 1879 to 1897. This was during those two decades when Russell was not directly pushing the idea that HE himself held the office of the FDS.
As someone recently said: you need to get your decades straight!

https://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/quotes/rape-fornication.php
Here you go, I'm only providing the link to the watchtower articles that state if a woman doesn't scream while she is being raped, she is guilty of fornication.

It's probably best if you would stop claiming that people who tell the truth are telling lies. You have consistently shown yourself to be quite uninformed and deficient in so many areas of Bible Student history. In spite of your claims and bluster you have never yet shown me any evidence of something I said that was wrong about Bible Student history, even though I'm sure to have made several mistakes as I often write about things from memory. But I've seen you make mistakes and false claims in the MAJORITY of your statements about Watchtower history or Bible Student history. You have made so many embarrassing errors when it comes to claims about Watchtower history that I have merely ignored dozens of them.
(You even seem to have forgotten more recent Watchtower history with regard to a woman's culpability if she didn't scream when raped. If I were to draw a conclusion based on your past levels of "honesty" I'd say you more likely are purposely trying to misunderstand this as a statement by NB that the WTS told women they could not scream.)

I wish I could agree. Fortunately, I believe there is a recent move towards a proper, Biblical standard of leadership. Unfortunately, we have a lot of documented evidence that the Watchtower GB have indeed deviated from Biblical standards of leadership.
For example, recall that in 2013, Charles Taze Russell (CTR) was finally removed from inclusion in the membership of the faithful and discreet slave, but that Joseph F Rutherford (JFR) now holds the "pre-eminent" position as the first well-known person that Jesus supposedly appointed to be a member of the "faithful and discreet slave" in 1919. Of course, JFR never noticed that Jesus had just appointed him to this position, because he went on claiming in 1919 and nearly until 1930 that he was NOT even a part of that "faithful and discreet slave" for several years after 1919. JFR claimed that only CTR held that office, and continued to publish the claim that CTR, in fact, was still "spirit-directing" the WTS from beyond the veil. JFR claimed that CTR was not only the "pre-eminent" member of the FDS, but that he was the ONLY person who had held that office.
In the WT, CTR was still considered a pre-eminent member of the FDS in these last days until the WTS removed him from ever having been a member of the FDS, as of that update in 2013.
But here is where the leadership problem comes in. Rutherford was known for blatant self-promotion, promoting a title and name for himself, advertising, advertising, advertising, and marketing stunts like putting the deed of a property in the name of Abraham, David, and other faithful "men of old." This might be just fine on its own, but he published the "Bulletin" and the "Messenger" which more than once printed the idea that disobeying Rutherford was tantamount to disobeying the Lord himself.
The idea that the organization was "spirit-directed" took on exactly the same meaning as "inspired." As an aside, someone recently pointed out that the term has now been removed from the baptism questions, and I think this is one of the steps in the right direction, in terms of leadership that is less presumptuous. (In fact, it is very difficult to translate the term spirit-directed into many languages in a way that would distinguish it from the term "inspired." Also, legally, it is easier to push legal liability back on local elders in cases of CSA legal errors, if the WTS stops using the term "spirit-directed" organization.)
But this idea of being "spirit-directed" was part of the deep-rooted belief that the "governing body" had about themselves. Twice, in court, (two different cases) members of the so-called "governing body" testified that Jehovah was the editor of the Watchtower. In fact, this was a reason (around 1931) for taking off all names of the editorial committee in Watchotwer publications except for Rutherford himself. 
We have had statements, even fairly recently, that continued to echo that same idea that Russell made when he said that reading his books would bring someone into the light in a short period of time, while reading the Bible alone would allow the same person to go off into darkness in a short period of time.
But back to the self-promotion of a leadership standard that was far from the standard Jesus set, as seen in Matthew and elsewhere. Here is an example from 1943 that I shared previously:
Watchtower, July 1, 1943 page 205:
Now, the apostle says, Jehovah speaks to us through his
Son. (Heb. 1: 1, 2) The Son has returned as King; he
has come to his temple. He has appointed his "faithful
and wise servant", who is his visible mouthpiece, and says
to those who are privileged to represent him upon the
earth, "This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in
all the world for a witness unto all nations" ...
These expressions of God's will by his King and through
his established agency constitute his law or rule of action
for the "faithful and wise servant" and for their goodwill
companions today... The Lord breaks down our
organization instructions further . . . . He says, 'Let us assign the field,
the world, to special pioneers, regular pioneers and companies
of Jehovah's witnesses. . . . He [the Lord]
says the requirements for special pioneers shall be 175
hours and 50 back-calls per month, which should develop
into a reasonable number of studies; and for regular
pioneers 150 hours and as many back-calls and studies as
can be properly developed during that time. And for
company publishers he says, 'Let us make a quota of 60
hours and 12 back-calls and at least one study a week
for each publisher.' These directions come to us from
the Lord through his established agency directing what
is required of us; . . . This expression of the Lord's will should be
the end of all controversy. It is for your good that these
requirements are made; for thereby you are enabled to
prove your integrity and magnify the Lord's name.
These directions from the Lord come to us as individuals
and as collective units called "companies". ...
They are to carry on all the forms of magazine work in
that assignment. ...
... The Lord through his "faithful and wise servant" now
states to us, "Let us cover our territory four times in six
months." That becomes our organization instructions and
has the same binding force on us that his statement to
the Logos had when he said, ''Let us make man in our
image." It is our duty to accept this additional instruction
and obey it. 
Since Jehovah was supposedly the Editor of this article, it made sense to the governing body that these words were to have the same binding force on us as any other command from Jehovah. The Watchtower's instructions to Witnesses were considered the equivalent of Jehovah's command to the Logos found in the words of the Bible in Genesis. This should make us think again when we see statements like:
"[A mature christian] does not advocate or insist on personal opinions or harbor private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding. Rather, he has complete confidence in the truth as it is revealed by Jehovah God through his Son, Jesus Christ, and "the faithful and discreet slave." (w01 8/1 p.14)     Those are not the words and attitude of persons who are humble, meek, faithful, wise and discreet.

Your illustration would work if the changes through the years have been only greater refinement. The reality is that the organization has vacillated back-and-forth on its doctrines (organ transplants, the meaning of "superior authorities," and the understanding of fornication come to mind). This vacillation is a serious issue. Think of the people that died refusing organ transplants or the women that were falsely accused of "consenting" to rape due to their inability to yell out.

... whatever Foreigner and BillyTheKid46 downvotes is probably worth reading.
In the 60's there was no movie rating system, and certain movies were banned by the "Catholic Legion of Decency", whatever that was .... and the movie producers would LOVE to be banned, because then all the Catholics would go and see what the hub-bub was about.

Yes, I thought so from what you've said. The truth is I've not been keeping up, especially since this thread got re-visited and exploded with comments. I will have to go back when I get a bit more time. In the mean time I will read your (for you) concise comment 😅

Power, authority, respect, rooms full of free money to spend any way they desire, living a very pleasant lifestyle in beautiful surroundings, being able to think of themselves as latter day Apostles, and the mortification of being caught.
Fortunately, there is nobody on Earth that can fire them ... AND THEY KNOW IT!