Sean Migos

Read the club guidelines and that might give you an idea. It is up to you what you want to discuss, and the tone you want to set, especially when you create your own topic. No one is going to make you be part of any discussion, helpful or unhelpful. It is up to you what discussion you join. And the good thing is, if you don't like the club, then there is a button at the top right hand corner which says "leave club" and that will delete your membership.

An illustration was given by Jesus on what kind of standard should be taken by those that decide to take the lead. The GB doesn’t overreach on its authority. I recall when Brother Jackson commented on how they, including the Elders, should not be seen like the Gentiles of Jesus at the time.  A better defense of contextual evidence than an irresponsible comment from outsiders about Luke. 1 Peter 5:3
Jesus himself stated, he was a servant and not to be served. Matthew 20:25-28
I have not found any evidence to suggest the GB has made it a practice to rule over others except by following Jehovah’s command. I don’t believe the GB has any illusions of being masters, especially task masters.
Maybe some brothers have forgotten. The GB has a greater responsibility as faithful servants and will receive a worse judgment of Jehovah if they deviate from God’s message.
In Brother Russell’s time, it was a given since each congregation was independent of each other. Perhaps the Bible Students felt the same way of understanding, Galatians 6:9.

(Luke 12:41, 42) . . .Then Peter said: “Lord, are you telling this illustration just to us or also to everyone?” 42 And the Lord said: “Who really is the faithful steward, the discreet one, whom his master will appoint over his body of attendants to keep giving them their measure of food supplies at the proper time?
Interesting. So when Peter asked Jesus, "Are you telling this illustration just to us or also to everyone?" Jesus should have answered, "NEITHER!" It's not to any of you apostles or disciples, because you'll be long dead by the time I return, and it's not to "everyone" either, because it's only going to apply to about two or three dozen people who are around between 1919 and, let's say, 100-and-some-odd years after that date.

It's a little bit more complex than that. Yes, parent's are definitely responsible for their minor children, even when their minor children are out of  sight, the responsibility for what the children do is still the parents, because the parents should be watching them.  However, is an employer responsible for what his employee does outside his employment? If the employee does something bad while on vacation (robs a bank) would his employer bear responsibility? Obviously not. Now if the employer planned the robbery with the employee, and got the employee to carry it out, then the employer will hold some liability. But it is still the employees choice, whether to go along with the plan or not. I don't think the claim "he made me do it" would hold up in court.
It always seems to me that when people try to hold the GB responsible for their choices in life, its like they forget that no one actually MADE them do anything. That it was the persons personal conviction, that whatever the direction the GB gave was correct, and therefor they followed it. We have to make the choice whether to follow it or not. Now if the direction proved wrong, then sure, we can blame the GB for the bad outcome, but it was STILL our choice and we have to get up and move on.

What do you know?

This is true. No one can be held responsible for the action of another. This is why the Governing Body cannot be held responsible for the actions of individual witnesses and members who attend meetings but are not baptized.  The Governing Body is held accountable by Jehovah himself. 
Can this not be said of other religions that condemn Jehovah witnesses for just about everything? The only thing left would be, condemn witnesses for the air they breathe.
I have no doubt Jehovah witnesses consider their K.H. as a consecrated place of worship while they are worshipping Jehovah at the time of use. I can see where any place can be considered consecrated ground for the purpose of worship.
When Jehovah witnesses use other building to conduct such as circuit or regional assemblies, I don’t see where they would own such property to use as consecrated ground to accommodate a larger audience of worshippers.
I can relate where in California, Jehovah witnesses purchased a Baptist Church to hold their weekly meetings. Can I say because it was purchased by another religion, that building in stained?
I believe the destruction of Jehovah’s House also confirms the looseness in the use of the word consecration. I also believe, when the Philistines captured the Ark, 1 Samuel 4, an instrument of Jehovah, can we say; while the ark was in the Philistine’s possession, was it held on consecrated ground?
*** w51 7/15 p. 431 Expansion of Theocracy in Indonesia and Singapore ***
On Sunday morning 45 turned up at the Victoria Theatre to hear a discourse on baptism, after which 5 persons symbolized their consecration to do God’s will by being immersed in a pond near the edge of the city. The question now was, How would the public respond to the advertising for the public lecture, “Proclaim Liberty Throughout All the Land”? At 4 p.m. came the answer. We saw the ground floor of the theater filled with an audience of 307 persons, which, considering the restricted avenues of publicity available due to municipal ordinances and emergency regulations, was a splendid result.
I recall, Joseph F Rutherford had to sell almost all the Watchtower assets to continue running the Watchtower, after his release from prison.
I believe there is an overreach with these definitions. I don’t recall where, Jehovah witnesses are fanatics as to consider the issue of consecrated ground, they couldn’t sell the original Tower in Pennsylvania and the original Headquarter in New York.
The fact that Russia confiscated all Watchtower material that includes Kingdom Halls can also be considered.

In general view, it is not reasonable to expect how some bro/sis in Honduras (or anywhere in the World) is/are responsible for act of JW lawyer or GB member who making more or less important decisions on activity of Organization.
The same as above :)
:)) WT JW Organization position is to point with "finger" how some/many religious beliefs and practice of Christendom and other religions is/are "condemn" by Bible through WT JW organization publications and representatives and rank and file members.
This would be interesting to discuss :))

The building of kingdom halls is looked upon as bringing “honor to Jehovah”, and it is not by coincidence that the Warwick Bethel has as its address, 1 Kings Drive. (1 Kings 8:13)  Buildings mean something  sacred to JWs.  I have watched a JW video of an assembly hall compared to the early temple,and how it must be treated with care as the early temple was.    They have great value as a place of consecrated worship.  Does it bring “honor to Jehovah” when these dedicated buildings are put up for sale?   If you say this thought would not be applicable at such a time, then how would anyone know that building a kingdom hall to begin with, brought "honor to Jehovah"?  How is it, one knows that God receives honor at the completion of  building a kh, but not privy to what He thinks when the 'for sale' sign is posted?
It is the hypocrisy, that is in play.  Hypocrisy and the idolatry of placing spiritual value in the work of man's hands.  Ps 135:15  

Can Jehovah witnesses be held liable for the personal action of a single person? Can they be held liable for the decision the Baptist church uses the building they bought? If they decide to worship Baal in that old Kingdom Hall, it is not the Watchtower position to condemn such false teachings.
For those of you that don’t understand scripture. Dedication is a personal action while consecration is a position.
The difference is on the person, place or thing, a group of united followers wish to use to worship the almighty.
You may wish to start with the understanding, Christ is the church. Is the Body of Christ a building? Did Jesus not use the temple? Perhaps by visiting JW.org, these questions can be made clear.
I will remind the readers there is a vast difference between the Bible Student Zion Watchtower, and the Jehovah Witnesses Watchtower. Those differences must not be compared, since doctrine does differ.