Juan Rivera

@Srecko Sostar As I see it, a large part(not all) of those who claim to be Christians, including JWs, and the lady of the video you shared (JW Research Rose) all work under the same principle. The principle is that the Christian religion is to be learned by interpreting the sources independently of the claims of any particular church/congregation, so that one must pick or find a church/congregation on the basis of that interpretation. The differences arise from differences about what the relevant sources are, and about how they are to be interpreted. But the principle is the same. 
The point is, that a large part of those who consider themselves Christian whether they are part of a church or not, have a perpetual openness to discovering new biblical and theological arguments to take us back to what the first century congregation itself actually thought. So to claim that something can be settled by biblical and theological arguments seems to be incompatible with that interpretative framework itself. 
So it's not change for the sake of changing. 
I understand your concern, as we all should, since it's clear we will stand before the Judgment seat and give an account for those whom we have aided in truth or misled. But this concern applies to everyone (not just JWs), especially those who are interested in knowing, loving, and serving God, according to the First Commandment (making every effort to seek out and embrace the religion God has revealed). 
Here's the issue I think we all have to face: 
If we as individuals and the Congregation are fallible, and thus could always be wrong, then the assent we give to doctrinal statements is always tentative and subject to substantive revision. If we and the Congregation could get it really, really wrong when we define a doctrine, then it would follow that we know next to nothing with any certainty. Statements of doctrine from a fallible authority of this kind cannot be clearly distinguished from human opinions, at least in theology, as distinct from, say mathematics or natural science. If this is so, then we don't know when what we're assenting to is a true expression of divine revelation, as opposed to a merely human way of interpreting the sources.  Everything remains up in the air, up for grabs, an open question yet to be settled and possibly false. 
I think is important to distinguish between the type of teachings and pronouncements that are being discussed : Do the teachings have to do with faith, with morals? Are they prudential judgments, policies, disciplines, practices, admonitions, worship? Prophecies, symbolic language, parables, prophetic passages? 
The issue you are trying to point out. if I'm right,  is if JWs have a system where some teachings don't change by contradiction, but develop/change in continuity, as opposed to other provisional teachings that can come and go, and even contradict previous decisions, because they are temporally conditioned, and the leadership is fallible with respect to them. There are two points to keep in mind though. First, a doctrine that develops is not corruption, though both involve change. Not all change is corruption.
On the other end of that same conversation: 
Fallibilism is not fallibility. Just because not everyone reasons well (although some people are better at avoiding error than others),our fallibility doesn’t prevent us from having more certainty about x than y. We can perceive the truth of some things to a greater degree than we do other things. So we have to distinguish between being susceptible to error, and the possible falsehood of any beliefs we hold or state. The fact that we are susceptible to error doesn’t mean that we cannot know with certainty that any of our beliefs are true. Nor does it mean that every proposition we believe or state might be false. Being fallible does not mean being skeptical about knowledge or truth. The text(Scripture) does possess meaning and can be accessed by ordinary people by their own reading of Scripture without the instruction of others . But accessing that meaning requires bringing the proper interpretative framework to the text. So what we need is to have intellectual humility and recognize that no one is well enough to avoid error absolutely. We have to recognize where and when and how we are fallible (noticing that we have gotten things wrong in the past, in these sorts of circumstances, in these sorts of ways, etc.)
But this issue is hardly new. You have Christians already in the 5th Century like Vincent of Lerins wrestling with John 17:3 and the idea of growth and development of understanding like Russell's "A new view of truth never can contradict a former truth. "New light" never extinguishes older "light" but adds to it."
The propositional content of our faith is crucial, but it is crucial with respect to its end, which is to safely direct persons to the living reality of God Himself, not merely to insist upon propositions about God.

@Srecko Sostar Here's an excerpt from a book I read a few years ago that deals with this question from a broader perspective, or say a more specific perspective (Catholic Tradition). It's by moral theologian Richard A. McCormick's Notes on Moral Theology: 1965 through 1980)

"I believe it is correct to say that the notion of the assistance of the Holy Spirit needs a good deal of theological attention… Any who undertake to speak about the action of the Spirit, especially if they try to explain how the Spirit works, realizes in advance that they are more than ever likely to end up with a theological foot in their mouth and make an utter fool of themselves; for the operations of the Spirit are above all ineffable. Yet the possibility of gaining some understanding and the anticipation of charitable correction by others minimizes the arrogance of the attempt. With this in mind I should like to offer a possible approach.
In facing this question two extremes must be avoided. The first would explain the assistance of the Spirit to the magisterium in a way which dispenses with the human processes. The second would simply reduce this assistance to human process. The first is the notion of a special assistance by the Spirit which represents a new source of hierarchical knowledge, arcane and impervious to any criticism developed out of Christian experience, evidence, and reasoning. Such a notion of assistance results in a form of fideism which makes it difficult, if not impossible, to see how any authoritative utterance is not thereby practically infallible. Furthermore, this notion of assistance is a summary edict of dissolution for the scholarly and theological fraternity.
The second extreme is such an emphasis on analysis and reasons that the action of the Spirit is simply identified with the shrewdest thinkers in the community and ultimately imprisoned in the best reasons they can unravel. This is an extreme for many reasons, not the least of which is that it is a form of neorationalism which overlooks the complexity and developmental character of moral cognition, especially by bypassing the real significance of the communitarian aspect of moral knowledge, and especially of the sensus fidelium. If the action of the Spirit is primarily directed to the Church as a whole, and secondarily and in subordination to the needs of the Church, to its pastors as pastors, then surely this fact must influence the emergence of moral knowledge, the operations of the magisterium, and the notion of the special assistance of the Holy Spirit to the magisterium.
It would seem that any explanation of the assistance of the Holy Spirit to the magisterium (noninfallible) must be adequate to four factors: (1) the judgmental competence of the hierarchy within the whole teaching process, (2) the activity of the Spirit in the formation of such judgment, (3) the possibility and fact of error in these judgments, and (4) the relevance of the experience and reflection of the whole Church in forming these judgments.
I should like to suggest that the middle course we seek is one which would associate the activity of the Spirit with human processes without identifying it with them. The nature of this association can perhaps be illumined by a reflection on error. When error occurs in human judgments, it would seem to occur in either of two ways: in the gathering of evidence or in the assessment of the evidence. Obviously there can be many reasons why either of these processes would function inadequately, but it is the breakdown of one of them to which judgmental error can be traced. If this is true, then is it not reasonable to think that at least the proper implementation of these processes is generally required to avoid error in complex decisions?
When this is applied to the magisterium, we might say that error could occur either through evidence-gathering or evidence-assessing. Hence at least adequate evidence-gathering or evidence-assessing are required if error is to be avoided. Evidence-gathering is inadequate when consultation is not broad enough to allow the full wisdom stimulated by the Spirit's activity in the whole Church to emerge. Evidence-assessing breaks down when consideration of the evidence is insufficient to allow the Spirit to aid in the emergence of its meaning. In the contemporary world these inadequacies would seem to be traceable to a failure in the fullness of the collegial process at all levels.
Now the magisterium of the Church has special advantages to overcome these handicaps in arriving at moral truth. First of all, bishops as pastors are in a unique position to be in contact with the convictions, problems, beliefs, joys, sufferings, and reflections of all groups in the local Church. That is, they are positioned to consult the experience and convictions (the wisdom) of their flock. As collegial pastors they are in a position to pool this wisdom and weigh it through a process of dialogue and debate. In this sense the episcopal and papal magisterium have sources of information which exceed those available to anyone else. Summarily: negatively, the magisterium is in a wonderful position to reduce the barriers which bind the Spirit; positively, it is positioned to engage the total resources of the community and thus give the Spirit the fullest possible scope.

Therefore, though we cannot capture in human categories the operations and assistance of the Holy Spirit, can we not identify the human processes within which the Spirit must be supposed to operate? And since the hierarchy is uniquely situated to implement these processes, is it not open to the assistance of the Spirit in a special way when it does so?"
 
Here's a discussion by a Witness (Rotherham) in regards to this topic: https://michaeljfelker.com/2014/05/23/spirit-directed-and-spirit-inspired-is-there-a-difference/

Two excellent, well thought out posts.
I especially liked the above quoted synopsis.
Since unfortunately, people like witch hunts, we must never surrender to the natural tendency to weaponize “new light”, for the consolidation of ecclesiastical power and authority.
  

@Srecko Sostar As I see it, a large part(not all) of those who claim to be Christians, including JWs, and the lady of the video you shared (JW Research Rose) all work under the same principle. The principle is that the Christian religion is to be learned by interpreting the sources independently of the claims of any particular church/congregation, so that one must pick or find a church/congregation on the basis of that interpretation. The differences arise from differences about what the relevant sources are, and about how they are to be interpreted. But the principle is the same. 
The point is, that a large part of those who consider themselves Christian whether they are part of a church or not, have a perpetual openness to discovering new biblical and theological arguments to take us back to what the first century congregation itself actually thought. So to claim that something can be settled by biblical and theological arguments seems to be incompatible with that interpretative framework itself. 
So it's not change for the sake of changing. 
I understand your concern, as we all should, since it's clear we will stand before the Judgment seat and give an account for those whom we have aided in truth or misled. But this concern applies to everyone (not just JWs), especially those who are interested in knowing, loving, and serving God, according to the First Commandment (making every effort to seek out and embrace the religion God has revealed). 
Here's the issue I think we all have to face: 
If we as individuals and the Congregation are fallible, and thus could always be wrong, then the assent we give to doctrinal statements is always tentative and subject to substantive revision. If we and the Congregation could get it really, really wrong when we define a doctrine, then it would follow that we know next to nothing with any certainty. Statements of doctrine from a fallible authority of this kind cannot be clearly distinguished from human opinions, at least in theology, as distinct from, say mathematics or natural science. If this is so, then we don't know when what we're assenting to is a true expression of divine revelation, as opposed to a merely human way of interpreting the sources.  Everything remains up in the air, up for grabs, an open question yet to be settled and possibly false. 
I think is important to distinguish between the type of teachings and pronouncements that are being discussed : Do the teachings have to do with faith, with morals? Are they prudential judgments, policies, disciplines, practices, admonitions, worship? Prophecies, symbolic language, parables, prophetic passages? 
The issue you are trying to point out. if I'm right,  is if JWs have a system where some teachings don't change by contradiction, but develop/change in continuity, as opposed to other provisional teachings that can come and go, and even contradict previous decisions, because they are temporally conditioned, and the leadership is fallible with respect to them. There are two points to keep in mind though. First, a doctrine that develops is not corruption, though both involve change. Not all change is corruption.
On the other end of that same conversation: 
Fallibilism is not fallibility. Just because not everyone reasons well (although some people are better at avoiding error than others),our fallibility doesn’t prevent us from having more certainty about x than y. We can perceive the truth of some things to a greater degree than we do other things. So we have to distinguish between being susceptible to error, and the possible falsehood of any beliefs we hold or state. The fact that we are susceptible to error doesn’t mean that we cannot know with certainty that any of our beliefs are true. Nor does it mean that every proposition we believe or state might be false. Being fallible does not mean being skeptical about knowledge or truth. The text(Scripture) does possess meaning and can be accessed by ordinary people by their own reading of Scripture without the instruction of others . But accessing that meaning requires bringing the proper interpretative framework to the text. So what we need is to have intellectual humility and recognize that no one is well enough to avoid error absolutely. We have to recognize where and when and how we are fallible (noticing that we have gotten things wrong in the past, in these sorts of circumstances, in these sorts of ways, etc.)
But this issue is hardly new. You have Christians already in the 5th Century like Vincent of Lerins wrestling with John 17:3 and the idea of growth and development of understanding like Russell's "A new view of truth never can contradict a former truth. "New light" never extinguishes older "light" but adds to it."
The propositional content of our faith is crucial, but it is crucial with respect to its end, which is to safely direct persons to the living reality of God Himself, not merely to insist upon propositions about God.

@Srecko Sostar As I see it, a large part(not all) of those who claim to be Christians, including JWs, and the lady of the video you shared (JW Research Rose) all work under the same principle. The principle is that the Christian religion is to be learned by interpreting the sources independently of the claims of any particular church/congregation, so that one must pick or find a church/congregation on the basis of that interpretation. The differences arise from differences about what the relevant sources are, and about how they are to be interpreted. But the principle is the same. 
The point is, that a large part of those who consider themselves Christian whether they are part of a church or not, have a perpetual openness to discovering new biblical and theological arguments to take us back to what the first century congregation itself actually thought. So to claim that something can be settled by biblical and theological arguments seems to be incompatible with that interpretative framework itself. 
So it's not change for the sake of changing. 
I understand your concern, as we all should, since it's clear we will stand before the Judgment seat and give an account for those whom we have aided in truth or misled. But this concern applies to everyone (not just JWs), especially those who are interested in knowing, loving, and serving God, according to the First Commandment (making every effort to seek out and embrace the religion God has revealed). 
Here's the issue I think we all have to face: 
If we as individuals and the Congregation are fallible, and thus could always be wrong, then the assent we give to doctrinal statements is always tentative and subject to substantive revision. If we and the Congregation could get it really, really wrong when we define a doctrine, then it would follow that we know next to nothing with any certainty. Statements of doctrine from a fallible authority of this kind cannot be clearly distinguished from human opinions, at least in theology, as distinct from, say mathematics or natural science. If this is so, then we don't know when what we're assenting to is a true expression of divine revelation, as opposed to a merely human way of interpreting the sources.  Everything remains up in the air, up for grabs, an open question yet to be settled and possibly false. 
I think is important to distinguish between the type of teachings and pronouncements that are being discussed : Do the teachings have to do with faith, with morals? Are they prudential judgments, policies, disciplines, practices, admonitions, worship? Prophecies, symbolic language, parables, prophetic passages? 
The issue you are trying to point out. if I'm right,  is if JWs have a system where some teachings don't change by contradiction, but develop/change in continuity, as opposed to other provisional teachings that can come and go, and even contradict previous decisions, because they are temporally conditioned, and the leadership is fallible with respect to them. There are two points to keep in mind though. First, a doctrine that develops is not corruption, though both involve change. Not all change is corruption.
On the other end of that same conversation: 
Fallibilism is not fallibility. Just because not everyone reasons well (although some people are better at avoiding error than others),our fallibility doesn’t prevent us from having more certainty about x than y. We can perceive the truth of some things to a greater degree than we do other things. So we have to distinguish between being susceptible to error, and the possible falsehood of any beliefs we hold or state. The fact that we are susceptible to error doesn’t mean that we cannot know with certainty that any of our beliefs are true. Nor does it mean that every proposition we believe or state might be false. Being fallible does not mean being skeptical about knowledge or truth. The text(Scripture) does possess meaning and can be accessed by ordinary people by their own reading of Scripture without the instruction of others . But accessing that meaning requires bringing the proper interpretative framework to the text. So what we need is to have intellectual humility and recognize that no one is well enough to avoid error absolutely. We have to recognize where and when and how we are fallible (noticing that we have gotten things wrong in the past, in these sorts of circumstances, in these sorts of ways, etc.)
But this issue is hardly new. You have Christians already in the 5th Century like Vincent of Lerins wrestling with John 17:3 and the idea of growth and development of understanding like Russell's "A new view of truth never can contradict a former truth. "New light" never extinguishes older "light" but adds to it."
The propositional content of our faith is crucial, but it is crucial with respect to its end, which is to safely direct persons to the living reality of God Himself, not merely to insist upon propositions about God.

@Srecko Sostar Here's an excerpt from a book I read a few years ago that deals with this question from a broader perspective, or say a more specific perspective (Catholic Tradition). It's by moral theologian Richard A. McCormick's Notes on Moral Theology: 1965 through 1980)

"I believe it is correct to say that the notion of the assistance of the Holy Spirit needs a good deal of theological attention… Any who undertake to speak about the action of the Spirit, especially if they try to explain how the Spirit works, realizes in advance that they are more than ever likely to end up with a theological foot in their mouth and make an utter fool of themselves; for the operations of the Spirit are above all ineffable. Yet the possibility of gaining some understanding and the anticipation of charitable correction by others minimizes the arrogance of the attempt. With this in mind I should like to offer a possible approach.
In facing this question two extremes must be avoided. The first would explain the assistance of the Spirit to the magisterium in a way which dispenses with the human processes. The second would simply reduce this assistance to human process. The first is the notion of a special assistance by the Spirit which represents a new source of hierarchical knowledge, arcane and impervious to any criticism developed out of Christian experience, evidence, and reasoning. Such a notion of assistance results in a form of fideism which makes it difficult, if not impossible, to see how any authoritative utterance is not thereby practically infallible. Furthermore, this notion of assistance is a summary edict of dissolution for the scholarly and theological fraternity.
The second extreme is such an emphasis on analysis and reasons that the action of the Spirit is simply identified with the shrewdest thinkers in the community and ultimately imprisoned in the best reasons they can unravel. This is an extreme for many reasons, not the least of which is that it is a form of neorationalism which overlooks the complexity and developmental character of moral cognition, especially by bypassing the real significance of the communitarian aspect of moral knowledge, and especially of the sensus fidelium. If the action of the Spirit is primarily directed to the Church as a whole, and secondarily and in subordination to the needs of the Church, to its pastors as pastors, then surely this fact must influence the emergence of moral knowledge, the operations of the magisterium, and the notion of the special assistance of the Holy Spirit to the magisterium.
It would seem that any explanation of the assistance of the Holy Spirit to the magisterium (noninfallible) must be adequate to four factors: (1) the judgmental competence of the hierarchy within the whole teaching process, (2) the activity of the Spirit in the formation of such judgment, (3) the possibility and fact of error in these judgments, and (4) the relevance of the experience and reflection of the whole Church in forming these judgments.
I should like to suggest that the middle course we seek is one which would associate the activity of the Spirit with human processes without identifying it with them. The nature of this association can perhaps be illumined by a reflection on error. When error occurs in human judgments, it would seem to occur in either of two ways: in the gathering of evidence or in the assessment of the evidence. Obviously there can be many reasons why either of these processes would function inadequately, but it is the breakdown of one of them to which judgmental error can be traced. If this is true, then is it not reasonable to think that at least the proper implementation of these processes is generally required to avoid error in complex decisions?
When this is applied to the magisterium, we might say that error could occur either through evidence-gathering or evidence-assessing. Hence at least adequate evidence-gathering or evidence-assessing are required if error is to be avoided. Evidence-gathering is inadequate when consultation is not broad enough to allow the full wisdom stimulated by the Spirit's activity in the whole Church to emerge. Evidence-assessing breaks down when consideration of the evidence is insufficient to allow the Spirit to aid in the emergence of its meaning. In the contemporary world these inadequacies would seem to be traceable to a failure in the fullness of the collegial process at all levels.
Now the magisterium of the Church has special advantages to overcome these handicaps in arriving at moral truth. First of all, bishops as pastors are in a unique position to be in contact with the convictions, problems, beliefs, joys, sufferings, and reflections of all groups in the local Church. That is, they are positioned to consult the experience and convictions (the wisdom) of their flock. As collegial pastors they are in a position to pool this wisdom and weigh it through a process of dialogue and debate. In this sense the episcopal and papal magisterium have sources of information which exceed those available to anyone else. Summarily: negatively, the magisterium is in a wonderful position to reduce the barriers which bind the Spirit; positively, it is positioned to engage the total resources of the community and thus give the Spirit the fullest possible scope.

Therefore, though we cannot capture in human categories the operations and assistance of the Holy Spirit, can we not identify the human processes within which the Spirit must be supposed to operate? And since the hierarchy is uniquely situated to implement these processes, is it not open to the assistance of the Spirit in a special way when it does so?"
 
Here's a discussion by a Witness (Rotherham) in regards to this topic: https://michaeljfelker.com/2014/05/23/spirit-directed-and-spirit-inspired-is-there-a-difference/

I would not call it “dumb” if I were you.
The four windows reminds us of the four angels on the four corners of the earth holding tight the four winds of the earth. The carpet covering the dirt of the floor reminds up of the love that is to cover the sins of others. The blue reminds us of heaven where those 4 angels hang out on a nice day.
”You were running well. Who hindered you from keeping on obeying the truth?”
 

For some, I think it must be like the reason they tie C.T.Russell somehow to Freemasonry. There is absolutely no reason to think that CTR was a Freemason just because he was familiar with some of their terminology and dabbled in silly pyramidology. But to a lot of people, Freemasonry means "demon" and "demon-control" and therefore it means something much worse than it would have meant, if Russell had been an actual Freemason. 
The same goes for those anti-JWs with a 'no-better-than-average' sense of pareidolia (people who see people and faces in everyday objects). When they look at pictures in the Watchtower of clouds or trees or bushes or patterns on cloth or in woodwork or this or that or the other, they see deformed faces and think of demons. I think these same people are a bit paranoid, too, so that when a real cloud in the sky looks like a puppy they wait for the cloud to grow and change and shift and distort and only notice it when it looks like a werewolf to them. 
I have a sense that they want to dismiss the success of JWs and assign it to demonic forces and this somehow rationalizes it for them. (Seeing Jehovah's obvious blessing in something and then trying to say it was from Satan and his demons is, in my mind, the primary definition of 'sinning against the holy spirit.')
I say this because the answer is yes, they often do posit a reason. I just got sucked down a reddit-hole last night looking for the answer to the same question. And it's sometimes related to the idea that if the UN really is a [demon-inspired] beast of Revelation, then the Witnesses are sucking up to the beast for whatever favors the beast would grant them. 
For the most part, however, it's just mentioned as a show of hypocrisy and sloppiness (as opposed to faithfulness and "discreetness"). I saw a comparison of the directive by the WTS that Malawians not buy a 25 cent national ID card over which Witnesses were killed, and the nonchalant sign-up to a 1991 NGO application that said the NGO participant would 'support the mission' of the UN. 
Some posited that it was for free international flights to troublespots (I highly doubt it), higher visibility when getting involved in humanitarian aid, a way of highlighting support for UNICEF (for children) at the same time that trouble began brewing over child protection in congregations. 
Ciro Aulicino is the guy who signed up for it along with GB member Lloyd Barry. Several on the forum know these brothers and know that Ciro, at least, was prone to lapses in judgment, but always with a good heart and for a good reason. When he first moved from the Service Dept to the Writing Dept he immediately began setting up a regular schedule where he was at one of the major libraries for nearly a whole day at least once a week. He had no qualms about taking material for his public talks directly from 18th and 19th century authors and commentaries. His Awake! and Watchtower material would often start out with statistics from outside sources. He must have thought that the UN had the best statistics about various nations and international data. 
Personally, I absolutely believe the WTS's explanation that it was all about access to the library. Any non-profit organization could already have standard access to the UN library, but the library was also a pre-Internet source of information about past, present and future UN backed seminars and reports, and therefore the advantages of becoming an NGO would have been seen as tempting. Those seminars are related to world health, world crime, natural disasters, religious persecution, holocaust memorials, etc., and are attended by writers, researchers, journalists and other religious and political organizations, too. In fact, the WTS still attends seminars that are backed by UN NGO's because it can help highlight the WTS's own involvement with some of these same issues. 

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!

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.
 

I confirm this. For me it certainly does.
Comparing the parable of the Good Samaritan with the prophecy of the faithful and discreet slave and extrapolating on this with the aim of dismantling the current explanation provided in the Watchtower is, for me, a fruitless, (pardon!), "apples and oranges" type excercise, (idiomatic use regardless of Smithsonian debate). 
I have stated my position on this matter above. I think that the position you appear to be stating measures up quite comparatively to that described at Numbers 16:3. I do not see the behaviour of those rebels at that time as a "picture" or "prophetc type" working out here. But I do see quite simply a similar circumstance in that an arrangement made by Jehovah to lead his people at a particular time (i.e. The Governing Body), is disputed internally and made out, subtly, to be a self-appointment on the part of participants, rather than a divine provision.
Pardon if I misunderstand. I am sure clarification will be forthcoming if this is the case.

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."

Most Witnesses obviously want to live peaceful Christian lives and conduct ourselves in a way that pleases Jehovah God and Jesus Christ. None of us really want the job of being responsible to take a specific position on all doctrinal matters and setting priorities for organizational direction in our overall global ministry. But we can be thankful that among Christians, there will always be a few that will take the lead in those heavy responsibilities.
The very desire to take the lead in such matters seems like an assignment that only someone who is very brave or very foolhardy would take. It seems that, from a worldly perspective, only the most haughty among us would reach out for such an important job. Yet, we know some of these brothers very well from either personal acquaintance, or perhaps they were Circuit and District Overseers in our congregations. Perhaps we worked alongside some of them in a Branch Office. We get to know their personalities from presentations, speeches, and broadcasts. We see them interact with each other at some events.
All in all, the majority of them seem to be good, God-fearing, humble men who want to do what is right, the same as the rest of us. We don't get the idea that any of them "schemed" to get to this position. We know that the guidelines for elders apply to them just as they apply to congregation elders. And it's my opinion, but I see a certain stability and faithfulness to worthy goals among all of them. 
Now it's easy to say good things about these men, and that's my point. When these men were mostly chosen only from a certain similar mold, there was not a large "pool" for these "gifts in men" to be chosen from. In the past, most had been chosen from a limited bureaucratic background. At the point when there were 17 GB members alive at the same time, most (but not all) had the ability to give a good talk, but at least half of them were seriously lacking in Biblical expertise, and at least half of them had very little experience even in the door-to-door field ministry for the last 40 years of their lives. We should not have been surprised that certain kinds of flaws showed up among these men so that several were dismissed, and a lot of politics and scheming was known to go on among those who remained.
But the current group, especially after the death of Theodore Jaracz, have been chosen from a much wider pool of candidates. These men have made more progress in the last 20 years than in the previous 100 years. They are managing a much bigger, and smoother operation, with millions and millions more persons in their care. Doctrinal changes over the last 20 years have been steady and clearly beneficial overall. The quality of the publications and the website has improved greatly. It's reach is enormous. 
I've already stated my opinion that the GB are not the equivalent of the "faithful slave" from a Biblical standpoint. But that's not the point of discussion here. These men, the GB, who have taken the lead for doctrinal and prioritized the organizational and ministerial direction have taken on an important and necessary assignment. They admit that they aren't perfect. Of course, that statement is meaningless, because such a statement almost always is used with the intention of meaning "perfect, for all practical purposes." But they don't leave it at that. They admit that they have made serious errors in doctrine and leadership. they admit that the spiritual food they produce and distribute is not always perfect.
So, with that said, I think one way of looking at the overall picture is to see these men in the position of keeping order. They take the lead at the "highest" level, not because they think that you must think that all these doctrines are perfect. They do it because it keeps order and harmony. They do it by taking a stand on certain doctrinal matters and setting organizational priorities. Sure, they may do some of this by majority vote, but ultimately they make choices. This is part of remaining organized in any organization and not falling into chaos. Going off in many directions is inefficient. Even trying a certain direction that proves untenable has a certain value if it's caught early enough, and there is humility to change.
Taking a stand means that we will sometimes discover we took the wrong stand, but it also has an advantage in making our beliefs transparent. If a doctrinal stand is taken, our thinking is clearer on it, and contradictions show up more easily. It would be easy to be 100% accurate by taking a less dogmatic stand on many things. But this makes it harder to test whether we are thinking correctly and reasonably on some of our beliefs.
I think that it could be like those logic puzzles, like they do for LSAT tests, where you get 5 to 10 clues, and have to figure out, for example, where everyone lives and what they do, what they drink, and the color of their house:
Bill is a plumber who drinks whiskey and lives in the green house that is next to a corner house. John is not a carpenter, and he drinks soda and lives in either a red or blue house that is two houses from Sally's house. etc. etc. etc. Sometimes you get to a point where you just need to take a stand and say that John must be in a blue house, for example, even if you don't know for sure, so that you can properly test if it works. (Actually, Sudoku was probably a better example, come to think of it.)
So, we can have doctrinal claims that are still in the middle of such testing. We took a stand, and it clarifies our position so that it can be more clearly tested. It can work for both trivial and important matters like: whether Moses wrote all of the first five books of the Bible himself, or whether Galatians was written prior to 1 Corinthians, or whether the "other sheep" are Gentiles or "spiritual Gentiles."
If we (as an organization) take a stand, it should be faster to get to a point where we can take a consistent stand on all important matters of doctrine and teaching. This assumes that haughtiness and love of tradition don't get in the way of change. And that gets back to having the right kinds of personalities taking the lead.

Lawyers say the damd darndest things. Speaking of James:
(James 1:27) The form of worship that is clean and undefiled from the standpoint of our God and Father is this: to look after orphans and widows in their tribulation, and to keep oneself without spot from the world.
 

… Sometimes …. details don’t matter.

That is correct. But, I'll leave it up to you, then, if you think there is an even more reasonable set of numbers to use for the items that the sheet failed to calculate. But that's only if you really care to quibble about the difference of a few numbers. As far as I am concerned the entire process showed up a lot of flaws in how things were handled. If the number of alleged reports had been twice as high or half as high, it still would have shown those flaws. I'm glad that policies changed in the immediate wake of these hearings.
The point I was trying to make was clearly not one you cared about, and that's fine of course. But I used it as an opportunity to show that there has been bias on the part of Witnesses reading the numbers and bias on the part of non-Witnesses in reading the numbers. If you are a Witness, you certainly helped make the point.
-------------------------
For any others who might be confused because of the position that another poster or posters have taken, I'll just try to clarify one last time:
The problem in counting alleged victims from this sheet is that someone, at some point, had tried to total the column, probably without realizing that they had accidentally forgotten to count any alleged victims among those where the exact number of alleged victims was "Unclear." Worse yet, they forgot to include in the total, all those 9 perpetrator cases where the number of victims was ten or more.
If we manually add up all the cells in the column that have an actual number in them we get 1,732. The fact that there is a "1730" at the bottom of that column shouldn't confuse anyone. It's not a summary formula and isn't even marked as a TOTAL anyway. Arguing that the number 1730 should be more accurate than adding up the actual numbers in the column manually makes very little difference, but it's an odd argument. It means we should not trust the thousand or so ACTUAL labeled numbers in the sheet and only trust the one unlabeled number.
But there are also those 45 perpetrators in the spreadsheet whose numbers of victims were NEVER counted in that "tentative" or rounded number that someone had left at the bottom.
My screenshot is cut off and doesn't show all of 45 of them -- but does anyone really think that these 45 lines should all total up to only ZERO alleged victims? One or two posters have indicated that these 45 lines should add ZERO additional victims to the number.  Yet, some of the perpetrators who are marked with 10+ victims were disfellowshipped 3 times and reinstated twice. Is it really reasonable to think that we should continue to count 10+ victims as ZERO victims even for those cases?

 

A male Ostrich was chasing a female Ostrich  across the fruited plains and the female Ostrich was getting tired. So, she stuck her head in the sand, reasoning that if she couldn’t see him, he couldn’t see her.
Suddenly, the male Ostrich screeches to a halt, and exclaims out loud to himself “Where did she go?, Where did she go?”.
 
 

Well? Don't just sit there. Tell me if I can do it or not.
One brother said about such articles: "I read the question, then I skip to the end to see if I can do it or not."
Alright, alright, he was not being serious. He was kidding. But there were likely some who did it just that way. After all, it's not a joke unless there's a kernel of truth in it. People are people, inside God's organization or out.

Or, from a different perspective . . . Be careful who you associate with. Those who are at war with themselves have a a better appreciation and empathy for those around them. (Less chance of collateral damage.)
(Romans 7:22-25) 22 I really delight in the law of God according to the man I am within, 23 but I see in my body another law warring against the law of my mind and leading me captive to sin’s law that is in my body. 24 Miserable man that I am! Who will rescue me from the body undergoing this death? 25 Thanks to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So, then, with my mind I myself am a slave to God’s law, but with my flesh to sin’s law.
(ESV) "But I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members."
 

It's very difficult to make a presentation without showing bias. The things that are important to one person or group or religion are the thing reported, not the things that are much less important. This presentation above was extra careful to present only things that were factual, but even here a couple of biases slipped in.
For one thing, the narrator claims by strong implication that no changes to CSA policy were initiated in the wake of the Australian Royal Commission. This isn't true. First of all, Bro Jackson made some excellent points about how responsibility for CSA policies cannot just be one-sided where all blame appears to be put on an organization when the organization itself often has no blame in the matter. Primary blame is always on the perpetrators of the crime, but policies to deal with it include government and law enforcement policies. It's true that many individuals within the organization have not always followed the law, but the law itself is often inconsistent, and frankly, the authorities have not earned public trust.
The ARC pointed out some of these egregious mistakes and even cover-ups. But the truth is that CSA policies were updated CORRECTLY in the wake of the ARC, and there was also a kind of "public service announcement" that addressed a necessary attitudinal shift among Witnesses: There was to be no more thinking that covering up CSA crimes somehow protected the reputation of the organization. From now on the emphasis was on the fact that all the shame should be centered on the perpetrator. Also, there has been a heightened awareness and sensitivity to the legal issues and more legal personnel have been aiding the organization in this regard.
I get the impression that these new policies and emphasis have been working. There are fewer and fewer NEW cases being tried against JWs. There are many cases still being tried and pending, but they are nearly always from CSA reports that predate the updated policies.  

Nathan W Pyle's alien comics are hilarious. Without kids, I don't think I would have known. Do you think the WTS will ever make use of something like them to help show the folly of Birthdays (aka Emergence Days)? Or Valentine's Day?

Caution: my own commentary will likely seem critical of the interpretation given by the Watchtower publications, for reasons that I will try to make clear. Not because the WT interpretations are necessarily wrong, but because they are so often presented as fact in so many publications, when overall, it is just an interpretation. The following was said in the "Revelation - Grand Climax" book, which explains why no interpretation, except that given in the Bible itself, should be treated as a fact.
*** re chap. 2 p. 9 The Grand Theme of the Bible ***
Interpreting the Scriptures The mysteries locked up in the book of Revelation have for long baffled sincere students of the Bible. In God’s due time, those secrets had to be unlocked, but how, when, and to whom? Only God’s spirit could make known the meaning as the appointed time drew near. (Revelation 1:3) Those sacred secrets would be revealed to God’s zealous slaves on earth so that they would be strengthened to make known his judgments. (Matthew 13:10, 11) It is not claimed that the explanations in this publication are infallible. Like Joseph of old, we say: “Do not interpretations belong to God?” (Genesis 40:8) At the same time, however, we firmly believe that the explanations set forth herein harmonize with the Bible in its entirety, showing how remarkably divine prophecy has been fulfilled in the world events of our catastrophic times.
A couple of the ideas found in this same book have already undergone some changes. TTH commented on the underlined part of the above quotation saying:
That's the spirit in which I would like to share a possibly "simpler" reading of this portion of Revelation. Some might not think the current explanation is complex, but I think when we look into it carefully, we can see that our current explanation produces some complexities that aren't seen until we reflect and meditate on the scriptures involved. And, of course, some might think that a supposedly "simpler" reading is wrong. That's quite alright, because I'm not 100 percent happy with it either.
So here's hoping that others can defend what's right with the current definition, and what's wrong with the alternatives, or vice versa.

The PDF linked earlier, "Jehovah's Witnesses and the Cross" Leolaia, 1990, speaks of semantic restriction by which some Watchtower doctrines have developed by focusing on only the simplest etymological meaning of a word like parousia or stauros or xylon, etc. In the case of "hand" there was found good reason to go with semantic expansion to fit our traditional beliefs on the subject.
Of course, this is not the only way that we (and, frankly, all Christian-associated religions  and others, too) solve problems of textual understanding. We could have used the method of resolving apparent contradictions by merely making up a third story that allows for a strict sense of the text to be true. For example, we have two versions of the death of Judas in the gospel accounts:
(Matthew 27:5-8) . . .So he threw the silver pieces into the temple and departed. Then he went off and hanged himself. 6 But the chief priests took the silver pieces and said: “It is not lawful to put them into the sacred treasury, because they are the price of blood.” 7 After consulting together, they used the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for strangers. 8 Therefore, that field has been called Field of Blood to this very day. (Acts 1:18, 19) 18 (This very man, [Judas] therefore, purchased a field with the wages for unrighteousness, and falling headfirst, his body burst open and all his insides spilled out. 19 This became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their language A·kelʹda·ma, that is, “Field of Blood.”)
To accommodate a strict-sense reading of both versions, we merely make up a third story that makes both versions true. We say that Judas bought the field in the sense that he provided the money even though others bought it. We also say that Judas hung himself but since there is no mention of falling in the first, and no mention of hanging in the second, we say that while hanging himself the branch broke and he died from the fall when his body burst open.*
So the WTS could have solved the supposed problem created by a strict-sense use of the word "hands" by merely adding a third story, not in the text, that Jesus may also have been bound to the stake in addition to being nailed. I read of a Roman slave carrying the patibulum through the public streets on their way to execution and having that patibulum tied to the arms of the slave. The patibulum of course, could become the crossbeam of an upright stake.
The fact that no third story like this, however plausible, has been suggested tells me that "semantic expansion" has been the solution, and this is the easiest idea to support from the Greek and from Scriptural usage of "hand."
*I think it's "funny" that when Papias (60 AD - 130 AD?) went to Palestine hoping to find first-hand corroboration of some of these early accounts he discovered completely different versions. For example, Judas was supposed to have blown up so big and fat, like a balloon, that he burst asunder and all his guts (fecal matter) were spread around. (His weight could have been part of a "third story" solution that explained a breaking branch!) The versions Papias learned told of Judas in this same condition, I think, being run over by a chariot (so that his fecal matter spread around on the ground). Mentioning the spread of someone's fecal matter as a most disgusting death was not limited to pagans. It is very explicit in the account of how Ehud kills "fat king, Eglon." And it's implicit in the idea that dogs ate up the body of Jezebel in the plot of Jezreel.
I saw this at https://www.gotquestions.org/nails-hands-wrists.html
While historical scholars are uncertain of the nail placement in Jesus’ crucifixion, or anyone else’s for that matter, the Bible simply says that Jesus had wounds in His hands (John 20:25-27). The Greek word translated “hands” is cheir, which means literally “hands.” There is no Greek word for “wrists” in the New Testament, even though some versions translate Acts 12:7 to say that the chains fell off Peter’s wrists. But the Greek word in this verse is also cheir. It's possible that the nails may have been angled to enter through the hand and exit through the wrist, but it's just as likely that the nails were driven straight through the hand somewhere near the base of the thumb. Experiments have shown that both ways do work and either way could have been used in the crucifixion of Jesus. I have also read that the "experiments" were some "scientist" nailing up cadavers to test the theory. Evidently just the hands alone actually could support the weight of any corpse he tried. Weird science.

Jesus gave accurate knowledge about the more important things. He gave that knowledge to the apostles and had it written down so that we would have the same access to the more important things through the Scriptures. Having accurate knowledge about a lot of other things is nice, but it wasn't what Jesus had in mind. The very fact that there are teachings of higher priority than others was already shown in this verse from John quoted earlier. Also, the point is made in more detail in Hebrews:
(Hebrews 5:12-6:3) . . .For although by now you should be teachers, you again need someone to teach you from the beginning the elementary things of the sacred pronouncements of God, and you have gone back to needing milk, not solid food. 13 For everyone who continues to feed on milk is unacquainted with the word of righteousness, for he is a young child. 14 But solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their powers of discernment trained to distinguish both right and wrong. 6 Therefore, now that we have moved beyond the primary doctrine about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying a foundation again, namely, repentance from dead works and faith in God, 2 the teaching on baptisms and the laying on of the hands, the resurrection of the dead and everlasting judgment. 3 And this we will do, if God indeed permits. I take it that we have most of the more important things in order. These additional details are just "nice-to-haves." And I see a lot of progress, not enough yet, but still a lot of progress on removing the less important things that we have admitted to getting wrong.