Juan Rivera

Like I said, the solution to arguing this stuff in circles, is not to quit the discussion, but to argue in straight lines, in an ordered way. And usually it takes training to know how to do that, particularly, training in logic. I’m not going to claim having that. Without that sort of training, discussions will typically go in circles or move all over the place and down every rabbit trail. That's why a profitable discussion usually requires a trained guide or moderator, just as a profitable classroom experience requires a trained teacher. So whoever you guys think is more qualified take the lead. @JW Insider 😉
 
 

In the end we have to maintain a tender, but clean conscience. Regardless of who holds authority, saying we're just following orders may not be enough. Like Aaron should have done, we have an obligation to place our ultimate obedience to the ultimate authority. We should not act out of preference or bias. But if acting based on 1) what the Bible says explicitly or 2) acting based on a sound logical conclusion of what the Bible says explicitly is insufficient, then our worship is not our own. In that case, we are worshiping for someone else. But not for ourselves.
For the life of me, I have no idea why simple the question regarding Aaron's action at Meribah is so hard to answer. It's not a hard question. Everyone here should know the answer. Aaron put loyalty to Moses (God's spokesman) ahead of his loyalty to God. In that instance, that was Aaron's sin.
The idea of limited obedience appears to be a new concept. I don't understand this.

No one here, including me, is talking about anyone losing their authority. It is as David said of King Saul, “It is unthinkable, on my part, from Jehovah’s standpoint, that I should do this thing to my lord, the anointed of Jehovah, by thrusting out my hand against him, for he is the anointed of Jehovah.” Accordingly David dispersed his men with these words, and he did not allow them to rise up against Saul."
It is one thing to act to remove someone from authority whom God has place in authority. That is for God to decide. Whoever that might be, God put them there, not us.
It is another thing to give a man (or group of men) unlimited obedience. God has not asked for that. God always expects us to act in good conscience to put Him first ahead of any other loyalty, or authority. This is the sin Aaron was guilty of at Meribah. When Moses said "we" at Meribah he was speaking of himself and Aaron. Aaron knew better, and so did Moses for that matter. It was God providing the miraculous provision of water, not Moses or Aaron. By not stepping up and checking Moses' actions to give the glory rightfully to God, Aaron was disloyal to God. This despite the fact that God had told Moses that he was "God" to Aaron. Aaron put his loyalty to Moses ahead of his loyalty to God. Aaron could have acted to check Moses, and he didn't.
The same person cited above (David) refused to act in a way that would, in effect, remove Saul from his appointed office. But David also refused to give limitless obedience to Saul. Saul, the anointed of Jehovah, said to David, "Come back". Instead, David "proceed to go his way". (See 1 Samuel 26:21-26)
Paul too addressed the notion of limitless obedience in his introduction to Galatia. As presented earlier, this is not a matter of personal interpretation, of giving preference to personal bias.
 

@Many Miles Come on now! Hold on a second. I think we are getting too far afield and need to bring back the discussion to the beginning because otherwise we are just talking past each other. Let’s put a pin on Aaron , because I’m also getting frustrated with your comments. You’re so eager to criticize, that we are loosing track of what is entailed by your admission (limited obedience in regard to interpretative authority) or namely the structural problem of not having any ecclesial authority. That is what is entailed by granting that Witnesses may at any time reject what their ecclesial authority says, so long as they disagree with them. If we may reject our ecclesial authority whenever we disagree with them, then there is no ecclesial authority. That’s the implication of that concession. When I submit (so long as I agree), the one to whom I submit is me, and then notice that if you were doing just that, i.e. submitting to a person (or set of persons) because we agree with their general interpretation of Scripture, nothing would be different than it is right now. At that point, we realize that the, we cannot reject those taking the lead, line is just a slogan, something we say to hide the unpleasant truth from ourselves that underneath it all, we’re just surrounding ourselves with persons who generally say what we agree with, and on that basis treating them as though they are authorities. But in actuality, it is all a charade, the one in charge is us. This is the contradiction I’m concerned we live, generally not allowing ourselves to see it, keeping the contradictory propositions compartmentalized, so that we can we can pull them out whenever we want, to preserve the charade of being under authority.
So I understand (and share, to some degree) your frustration. In other words, it takes a lot of hard work from all parties to a discussion to agree on even a narrow proposition and, depending on the work committed, THE discussion can either be a labor of love or a waste of time. Much of the hardest work, the real nitty-gritty of discourse, is dedicated to coming to agreement on language and the meaning behind language. This process is far less glamorous than scoring points. Too often in discussions, I see people respond to a challenging narrow proposition (the matter at issue) with a broad “shotgun” critique of the other person's overall position. A ‘shot-gun’ approach is not conducive to genuine dialogue aimed at coming to agreement concerning the truth. 

Like I said, the solution to arguing this stuff in circles, is not to quit the discussion, but to argue in straight lines, in an ordered way. And usually it takes training to know how to do that, particularly, training in logic. I’m not going to claim having that. Without that sort of training, discussions will typically go in circles or move all over the place and down every rabbit trail. That's why a profitable discussion usually requires a trained guide or moderator, just as a profitable classroom experience requires a trained teacher. So whoever you guys think is more qualified take the lead. @JW Insider 😉
 
 

@Many Miles @George88 Witness recognize a hierarchy of authorities, similar to what the centurion in Scripture says in Matthew 8:9 and Luke 7:8, and found clearly in the epistles. The authority of someone lower in the hierarchy does not subvert the higher authority, but depends upon it, without reducing to it.
So applying the Apostles’ statement (Acts 5:29) to Aaron that we should obey God rather than men in is not a rejection of divinely established hierarchy. It is rather the claim that when human authorities oppose divine authority, then we must obey divine authority. Thus, rightly interpreted, the truth that we should obey God rather than men is not a justification for rebellion against divinely established authority, it is rather a recognition that rebellion against God on the part of those who have been given such authority does not require those over whom they have been given authority to follow them in that rebellion; indeed, we must not follow rebellious leaders in their rebellion against God. At the same time, the standard for obedience to God isn’t one’s own interpretation of Scripture, such that any leader who doesn’t conform to one’s own interpretation of Scripture is ipso facto in rebellion and therefore can rightfully be disregarded. That notion would eliminate the very possibility of a Governing Body.
I’m concerned we are perhaps glossing over the essential role of the interpreter and the interpretative framework they each bring to scripture.
So in order to determine whether it's right for us Christians to go against the Congregation's authorities, (like your example of Aaron) we need to know the principled difference between those situations in which one is justified in acting against the Congregation authorities, and those situations in which one is not justified in acting against them. Otherwise, the individual JW could treat every case in which he disagrees with the Congregation as a case justifying his acting against the Congregation. The Bible is just as adamant against vigilante Christianity as it is about false prophets. You will not find anywhere in the scriptures vigilante Christians ever praised for rebelling against lawfully ordained authority on the basis of their private interpretation of scripture. There being a standard by which acts of both the Governing Body and those who hold the office can be judged (and ought to be judged) is fully compatible both with Jehovah's Witnesses not being their own ultimate interpretive authority.
So no one is expecting any JW to be a blind follower, but God does expect them to distinguish between when they have such prerogatives and when they don't.
Jesus nor the apostles opposition to the authorities of their time serve as precedent, since they themselves were the new authority in Israel, as God’s Son and his commissioned apostles. Jesus opposers (Jewish leaders) were the lawfully-ordained authority of their day, when Jesus rebukes them is from one authority to the other not a case where someone on the basis of his private reading of scripture rebels and tries to correct those taking the lead (seat of Moses).
So we need to back up and answer a prior question. How do we rightly determine the criteria by which those taking the lead lose their ecclesial authority? Until we answer that question, we cannot determine objectively whether any particular leader has or has not lost his ecclesial authority, and we thus run the risk of rebelling against a rightful ecclesial authority. That's a very serious error that we shouldn't trivialize or take lightly. When the Amalekite reported to David that he had found Saul impaled on his spear, still living, and that he had killed King Saul, David's response was this, “Why did you not fear to lift your hand to do away with the anointed of Jehovah?” (1 Sam 1:14) Likewise, we too ought to have this kind of fear lest we be rebelling against the LORD's anointed ecclesial authority. That's why we need to know with certainty how to determine rightly what are the objective criteria by which those taking the lead lose their ecclesial authority, before we conclude that they no longer have ecclesial authority.

The incident at Meribah Rock is an important reminder of the importance of obedience to God, and the consequences of disobeying his commands. It serves as an example to us all, of the importance of trusting in God’s will, and of the consequences of disobeying him.
The illustration of Meribah Rock helps to deepen our comprehension of the contrasting concepts of obedience and disobedience. As I mentioned earlier, it serves as a powerful reminder of the profound significance of wholehearted obedience to God and the potentially severe consequences that can result from disobedience.
Those who dare to alter their preaching or teaching in order to distort, mishandle, or misinterpret the word of God, go against what is stated in Galatians 1:8. This indicates their disobedience towards God.
Although Paul did not explicitly state that you would be excluded from the new system due to your personal actions, he did warn of being cursed, or more simply put, damned. This implies that God will judge individuals, much like he did with Moses.

I agree it is essential to scrutinize every post on this platform (or elsewhere), placing importance on scriptural support and principles above any biases or allegiances.

I appreciate your acknowledgement that we should scrutinize every post on this platform, placing importance on scriptural support and principles above any biases or allegiances.
It seems like you're mentioning the 80s, a time when there was a purge of disloyal members of the society who did not adhere to scriptural support or biblical principles. I personally knew many individuals from that era, and based on what I observed, there were valid reasons for that purge to take place.

For full disclosure, at your first post, I almost immediately recognized that this would be your point of view even though you hadn't revealed it yet. I think you know what I mean, and I'll have to leave it at that. But I have no problem with questioning the validity of posts in the absence of concrete evidence. This is how I think all of us should think about most posts here. It's the nature of the media.
From what I could see, there were indeed persons at Bethel at that time who appeared to choose disloyalty to God (in favor of the Organization) and I worked very closely with one of them. The brother I am referring to above was NOT one of them. He found a way to be loyal to the organization and remain loyal to Jehovah. The brother I worked more closely with tried to punish him for it, but that punishment didn't really stick, as he continued to work for the Writing Department, remotely via Bro Swingle, and continued to write many of the Watchtower study articles long after he was dismissed from Bethel and given a special pioneer stipend to live on. In fact, a large portion of the Insight book contains articles that remain untouched from the way he wrote and edited them for the Aid Book. The Aid Book was once removed from the Watchtower Library, but has since won its place back into it (although mostly redundant with Insight).

Speaking of loyalty and whether there is a rightful limitation to obedience toward teachers, the subject reminds me of the anointed position held by Moses. Moses was anointed to high position and Israel was supposed to obey him as God's spokesman.
But there was an incident at Meribah where the anointed of Jehovah overstepped. There was another person there by the name of Aaron. He observed what was going on. Aaron had a choice. He could just go along, or he could have spoken up and checked Moses for what he was saying. Because Aaron just went along, he was guilty of sin, with the result that he was removed from high office and prevented from entering the promised land. In that case, loyalty would have had Aaron recognize that obedience (whether passive or active) had an appropriate limit in relation to men (even a man known to be anointed as God's spokesman), and that his ultimate obedience belong to God.

Yes. What JW Insider points out is something known to me as well. I've had those discussion with decision-makers inside Bethel. Aside from that, there are persons who need what they think they have, even though what they have may not be what they think. At their age, I'd not bother them with something that could shake their world. But, on the other hand, we can't let those who may be weak keep us from sharing things for sake of learning and growing. Otherwise learning is stifled, which is never a good thing.
I've shared some views in this discussion. Whether others agree with them or not is of no concern to me, except to say if those views are wrong I want to know. But I'd look for logical refutation; not just statements of disagreement. I have no fear of being wrong. Again, if I'm wrong I want to know it. My faith is firmly planted, and it's not planted in trust of any men or group of men.

@George88 George, I can understand your perspective. I’m actually coming to the table with a stronger view than probably everyone here. I have said before that I do not trust the Governing Body because I think that the elders and overseers have better knowledge of doctrine and theology than other Brothers I respect in person and here on the forum. My experience has led me to believe that some Jehovah’s Witnesses have more in-depth knowledge of some topics and specifics than many elders, and perhaps even than some overseers and Governing Body members. But that is irrelevant. I trust the Governing Body because I believe its authority is God-given, not attained by human study or genius. Thus its authority is charismatic, not academic. And I believe that because it’s the only basis I’m aware of for distinguishing, in a principled way, between an authentic authoritative interpretation and human theological opinions. So I have chosen in good conscience to accept the Governing Body’s claim for itself. That means that, when a theological opinion of mine turns out to conflict with their teaching, I conclude that I’m the one who’s wrong, not the Governing Body. So they enjoy the presumption truth and my sincere efforts to assimilate their teaching
In light of your other comment:
The easy way to dismiss those who come to disagree with us is to chalk it up to something less than noble in them. The more appropriate, and charitable response is to address the reasons, evidence, arguments, etc., the other person give for *why* they think their position is true, and our position false. That's the essence of rational dialogue. But deconstruction is a kind of ad hominem (i.e. "you only believe that because you ..."), and hence it can be used both directions, with no progress forward toward mutual agreement. That's why it is better not to make use of deconstruction at all, and always assume (unless given good reason to believe otherwise) that the other person is motivated primarily by a desire for the truth.
But I understand your concern.  If I have a submissive attitude to a problematic teaching I will be willing to engage in further study of the issue with others here. Perhaps my questions are the consequence of poor education as a witness, and that is my fault not of others. If the teaching in question is in regards to matters of morality, than I should examine my conscience. This means asking myself some difficult questions regarding the nature of the difficulties I am having with a given teaching. Am I struggling with this teaching because I cannot discover in it the will of Jehovah,  or is it because this teaching, if true, would demand some real change?  Believe me that I constantly consider whether my difficulties lie not with a particular teaching but with the very idea of a teaching office.

@Many Miles So let me express some concerns and review the previous points you have made.  But before that, here's another concern or a great caveat:

@Many Miles So let me express some concerns and review the previous points you have made.  But before that, here's another concern or a great caveat:

My comments here are not addressing whatever authority the governing body holds. 
 
My comments here are addressing whether there is a limit to obedience Christians are directed to show to those taking the lead as their teachers, including the governing body (note Paul’s use of “we” in his letter to Galatia)
Though “submit” is an act in relation to an authority, I believe Paul expressed a limitation to submission expected of Christians. 

Unity in common cause is not a result of uniform beliefs. Unity in common cause is a result of people working together despite holding differing beliefs. And, to be sure, among JWs there are very consequential beliefs that individual JWs hold differently from one another. In our literature these consequential differences are classified under a term we call “personal conscience”. 
 
Back to my contribution in this discussion, of Christians and those taking the lead as their teachers, either 1) there is a rightful limitation to obedience toward those teachers or 2) there is no rightful limitation toward those teachers. 

Juan, my perspective is primarily based on the application of scripture. There is nothing more enlightening than grasping the profound viewpoints that the apostle Paul expressed on various subjects.
*** w75 9/1 p. 530 Have Intense Love for One Another ***
INTENSE “AGÁPE” LOVE SHOWN BY ALL
 
At this moment, I find myself preoccupied with a more serious matter that goes beyond personal opinions influenced by emotions and thoughts, rather than being grounded in scripture.
https://nypost.com/2023/10/29/news/ex-jehovahs-witness-claims-responsibility-in-facebook-video-for-deadly-blasts-in-india/

So, if I understand correctly, what you're saying is that what has been done here is essentially the same as what you're describing. It is important to acknowledge and understand the negative consequences of one's actions before pushing an agenda.
It is important to consider the credibility of the individuals questioning the negative position and their interpretation of other people's words as ad hominem attacks. We should question whether those who are favorably regarded by a particular group are essentially applying an ad hominem framework themselves.
Respect is a crucial element that should be extended to everyone in a position of responsibility, as emphasized in scripture. Although Elders possess a wealth of knowledge in applying scripture, they do not dedicate much time to interpreting it. This can also be observed in the apostles who had direct knowledge of Christ's teachings, unlike the Elders in Galatia who were susceptible to false teachings. Personally, I greatly admire those who strive to comprehend scripture within the context of the first century framework, as understood by Christ himself.
Respecting scripture is not merely important, but it is crucial to comprehend and apply it accurately, just as Christ intended. This divine message was reinforced by the apostles and spread by the dedicated group of 70–72 individuals whom Jesus appointed as preachers and educators.

What I wrote here is, I believe, what Paul alluded to in his second letter to Thessalonia. There, he wrote of something that served, at the time, as a restraint to what he went on to describe as what we would term “apostate” today. 
 
Paul was an apostle personally appointed by Christ. He was in addition to the earlier apostles. These men manifested supernatural abilities to corroborate that their teachings were right and should be accepted. But, as Paul said to Thessalonia, as a “restraint” though these men existed they were only temporary. One day they would all be gone in death, and their “restraint” would therefore be gone in person. 
 
But these men left something behind for future generations of Christ’s followers. They left behind written words that today we know as the Bible. We are equipped with the Bible. In their absence we have what we need for competency for examining teachings for soundness. 
 
Another apostle, John, wrote that we have intellectual capacity for the purpose of knowing the true one. Yet another apostle, Peter, reminds us we must be sure to exercise intellectual capacity with a sound mind. 
 
Hence those who initially acted as a restraint against wrong teaching left behind themselves two important things for us. 1) Written words and 2) that which can be soundly concluded from those words. Today, these serve as restraint against wrong teaching, and our obedience should rightly end where wrongness begins. This limit of obedience is, I believe, something Paul was very straightforward about in his letter to Galatia. 

Upon reflection, it is apparent that many of us inadvertently adhere to certain frameworks. It is worth considering the notion that our own interpretations may surpass those of individuals who have devoted their entire lives to adhering to God's laws and ensuring that the interpretation of scripture remains well-founded in the principles of the first century. In light of this, individuals who conscientiously question a spiritual leader must ask themselves whether that leader is behaving like a pharisee or a false teacher. If the answer is affirmative, it is essential for the individual to first question their own intentions and motivations.

@Srecko Sostar I'm really trying to understand where are you coming from and what is the point of all your post. Maybe @JW Insider or @Anna can help you on this topic because I'm speaking for myself in hopes that it might give you some help or insight.
As I see it, the gospels indicate that Jesus was intent upon choosing 12 followers in imitation of and continuity with the ethnic structure of the Hebrew nation. Hence, he is seen to be launching a new Israel. He is portrayed in the historical texts as investing these officers with his own divine power, commissioning them to teach in his name, and promising to send them divine help to carry out this task. Nowhere does he tell any of the twelve to write, nor does he write anything himself. In fact only 3 or 5 of the 12 actually do write anything (depending on scholarly debates). Instead the one and only earthly program he seems to have set in motion is the establishment of a Congregation. Following the divine teaching method of embedding revelation within a cohesive historical community (the sheltered environment of Hebrew society and culture), he reshapes ancient Israel. Instead of initiating a religion solely based on scriptures, he establishes a global community that allows divine messages to spread worldwide while preserving their essence. 
As I already mentioned to you, 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. (Restorationism) So to claim that something can be settled by biblical and theological arguments seems to be incompatible with that interpretative framework itself. 
Here's an excerpt from a JW historian that traces the Watchtower roots, taken from his introductory chapter from Separate Identity: Organizational Identity Among Readers of Zion's Watch Tower: 1870-1887. Volume 2. Culture and Organization. I think @JW Insider disagrees with some minor points but generally agrees with the summary:
 
The Roots of Watch Tower Belief
I do not have space to fully examine the millenarian antecedents of Russell's belief system. So what follows doesn't even qualify as a survey; it is the briefest of 'tastes' - a short essay on millennial thought up to the Russell era. I will take you no further back than the 16th Century. I will focus on British and American millenarianism. There were similar systems in Europe, but Russell's acquaintance with them was slight. He came to German millenarianism through Seiss, whose references to it are few and indistinct. There were French, Swiss, Polish, Bohemian and Italian believers, but we think Russell knew next to nothing about them.

Before I proceed I should note that Russell's prophetic views are not the only part of his doctrinal set with roots in the colonial era. His rejection of the Trinity connects directly to the Colonial Era and early Republic Era belief of non-Trinitarian Congregational churches in New England and anti-Trinitarian agitation among British clergy. The latter was common enough that William Lyford [c. 1598-1653], a Puritan clergyman, wrote The Plain Man's Senses Exercised to Discern Both Good and Evil primarily to refute prevalent non-Trinitarian belief.

Anti-Trinitarian thought persisted despite attempts to quell it. Watchtower writers suggest that, among others, Thomas Emlyn stands in the history of their faith. Emlyn was republished in America. There is no proof that Russell read any of his work, though he may have come to Emlyn through reading Gibbon's Decline and Fall.  Samuel Clarke's Boyle lecture on the Trinity found a place in American libraries; Priestley's multivolume work on the Trinity was circulated in America and extracts from it and his catechism were summarized in tracts and the catechism was published entire in 1810. William Jones The Catholic Doctrine of a Trinity, written to counter anti-Trinitarian agitation in Britain, was republished in 1816. In America, in the aftermath of the Great Awakening, many of those influenced by it rejected Trinitarian doctrine, some becoming Socinian and others adopted Sabellianism or Arianism. New Light rejection of Trinitarianism was still an issue in the 1820s, and the issue persisted into the 1840s. Grew and Storrs both rejected the Trinity. We cannot suggest that Russell derived his Subordination doctrine [a non-Trinitarian belief system similar to Arianism] from Adventism. When some Adventists entered the discussion, they did so as part of a far larger trend.
The belief, characteristic of Watch Tower adherents, that Bible reading was obligatory and that it was meant to be understood by the average reader extends backward to 17 Century Separatist and Puritan England. So too does Russell-era Watch Tower belief that the proper form of church governance is congregationalism. Conditional Immortality doctrine, the belief that immortality is a gift from God not an inherent right, finds its origins in an ancient past, and, as it came Russell, in the reformation era. The belief that God directly intervenes in the life of Christians came to Russell, in America with the earliest European settlers. It was as strongly-held in Russell's as it was among the Jamestown colonists (1607), the Pilgrim Separatists (1620) and the Puritans who followed. We see it in Russell's supposition that his meeting with Wendell was only seemingly an accident. We see it in the pages of Zion's Watch Tower when new adherents believe Watch Tower tract or an issue of the paper falling into their hands was an act of divine providence.
Both in Britain and in the American colonies that 'marvels' portended divine messages was a strongly held belief. In the pre-scientific era, a strayed horse, a comet, a cloud's shape, were all messages from God. Tall tales of marvels were persuasive political and religious arguments. The Gospels say that Jesus predicted a proliferation of earthquakes as a peculiar sign of the last days. In the pre-scientific era this Biblical statement was combined with lack of knowledge, resulting in all earthquakes being seen as the impending apocalyptic judgment or as God's warning to a wayward people. Charles and John Wesley saw the London, Lisbon and Boston, Massachusetts, earthquakes of the 1750s in this light, writing hymns and preaching sermons to that effect. Rationalism started to prevail in the last third of the Seventeenth Century, but the belief in divine providence persisted and persists still. We see it in the pages of modern Watchtower publications when an adherent is convinced that God guided them into the light of truth. (And in fact, we cannot gainsay God's guidance or his answers to prayers without repudiating the New Testament.) In Russell's experience we see this in his narration of a fall on the snow which he attached to a moral lesson, and we see it in his belief that all Christians received guidance through divinely inspired dreams.
Colonial era almanacs were willing to credit astrology even while promoting religion. These found their counterpart in A. D. Jones and Russell's willingness to credit astrology even while - in Russell's case - seeing it as a tool of Satan. The tension between Separatist and Puritan seeking holiness and the Church of England's expectation that all submit to its ritual dedicated to Christ or not, spilled into the 19 Century. Puritan insistence that the church was for the holy only -committed, obedient Christians- is the background to Russell's criticism of morally compromised churches. Ultimately this derived from New Testament doctrine. Christians are to be holy as God is holy. (I Peter 1:16) There is, Paul writes, no room within Christian ecclesias for unrepentant, unregenerate sinners. This tension expressed itself in Watch Tower and Plymouth Brethren belief and in that of conservative American churches and non-conformist chapels in the United Kingdom. While Russell's connection to his Anglo-American heritage is largely ignored by writers, these connections are as important as the millennial heritage from which his belief system truly came.

Russell-era meeting format derives from colonial-era structure, sometimes modified to accommodate groups who lacked leadership. The Russellite Prayer, Praise and Testimony meetings come from non-conformist belief systems. Opportunities, sometimes rare and occasionally more frequent, to testify to one's faith and to an incident of Divine Providence, gave colonial-era believers a sense of unity, of belonging to the Body of Christ. Russell's persistent condemnation of creeds and sectarianism derives from the same source. It can be traced to the Reformation Era and its aftermath. Writers and surviving sermons from that era often condemn divisions and false teachings, frequently focusing on the identity of the prophetic Babylon the Great and identifying her daughters as sects infected with false belief and false practice. For instance Benjamin Keach [1687] identified Babylon the Great as the Catholic Church and her harlot daughters as in a "spiritual sense ... unclean Communities". In America after the French and Indian War [Seven Years' War], sectarian divisions were seen as harmful to the cause of Christ. This did not lead to unity or suspension of creedal belief but to a semblance of peace between denominations. Post-Revolution commentators continued this. The Catholic Church retained its status as mystic Babylon; denominational Protestant churches were Babylon's harlot-daughters.

Radical Pietists immigrated to America from Britain, Germany and Switzerland, settling in Pennsylvania, New England and South Carolina. They were distinguished by a rejection of sectarianism. In Britain the Village Itinerancy Society was founded in 1796 by laymen who believed that the Millennium impended and that "what the nation needed was an undenominational, and by implication, unordained army of itinerants charged with the awesome responsibility of bringing God's pure word, undefiled by party or sect to a 'perishing multitude." Closer to Russell's day Philip Schaff and John Williamson Nevin, then both instructors at the German Reformed seminary at Mercersburg, Pennsylvania, developed a 'manifesto that included "the evil of sectarianism, and the imperative of unity within the church." They saw "rationalism and sectarianism" as the greatest dangers to the church. Claude Welch suggested that the movement derived from Nevin and Schaff's manifesto died out after the Civil War. It did not, and we find it expressed in various ways. Russellite rejection of sectarianism with its dependence on creeds derives from this long heritage. This is true of other small fellowships who described themselves as nonsectarian and of those independent congregations who fellowshipped on the basis of faith alone and not on the basis of creedal doctrine."
 

The real issue to me is about the limit of obedience.
 
Paul was pretty straightforward. In essence he said Christian obedience to those taking the lead ended where those taking the lead departed from what had been taught and accepted. Paul admitted that obedience had a rightful limit, and he laid down a litmus test for it. 
 
Of course, back then there were supernatural evidences available to corroborate whose teaching had merit, and departure from those teachings was the litmus test. 
 
Today, to our knowledge, there are no supernatural evidences corroborating whose teaching to accept. What we have is something that was only building amongst early Christians. We have the Bible. So today the litmus test should be 1) what the Bible expressly states, and 2) what can be deduced from what the Bible says with a conclusion that is subject to known conventions of logical construction (i.e., a demonstrably sound conclusion)
To be blunt, 1) if a teaching is found to be not expressly stated in biblical text, or 2) if a teaching is not a demonstrably sound conclusion (or, worse, a refuted conclusion), then no Christian should be bound to obey that teaching. Such teachings should be left to accept or ignore based on personal conscience.

I’m all for gaining insight. We should learn from one another. The primary issue I’ve raised regarding the letter to Galatia is that the then “governing body” (to borrow a term) was willing to tell the body of Christ when they should be held as accursed, and that doing so was fine as depicted. 

As things stand, right now and for decades there is misleading and patently false information plied by the society to prop up religious positions that, daily, have life and death consequences. This is all demonstrable. Only it’s not revealed by the society.
 
These things have to be found out otherwise, often from letters of correspondence from the society stating things that are never published for broader review and edification. In other cases it’s found in academic peer reviewed professional articles, which when questioned directly the content is confirmed privately by the society but with no broad publication. If it’s good for the goose it should be good for the gander.
 
When I learn of some of these things it is very disturbing, which is only exacerbated knowing if you question what you see happening you are subject to being branded. And, for what? Asking out loud about things that are demonstrably valid? Paul offered that the then “governing body” was subject to making sure they were being faithful in teaching and dealings with the brotherhood, and that it was fine to point to wrongness. Paul offered a litmus test to use of the then governing body. I’ve never read where our contemporary governing body could even possibly be held accursed for reason. It’s treated as a ridiculous notion. 

For whatever small contribution it might make toward informing about the governing body as it has represented in the last century up until today, I would engage such a discussion in a public forum. 
It tends to be a touchy subject because, as you cited Rotherham, there tends to be sentiment that it’s ridiculous to even think what we look to as a governing body could knowingly present false teaching (what Rotherham depicts as apostasy).
Not to be overlooked is the writer to Galatia (Paul) was himself a newer convert to the Christ, Jesus. He was an ex-Judaic with firsthand experience with an religion/organization run amuck, which organization had, the old fashioned way, disfellowshipped one among themselves named Jesus. Paul himself had been drawn into this wholly wrongheaded way even to the point of persecuting followers of Jesus. Hence the man had passion for holding leaders accountable, which comes across loud and clear in the letters opening statements.
Nonetheless, I’d engage the topic. 
 

in the original context, the difference was that Angus Stewart asked "do you see yourself as modern-day disciples?" A lot of people use the term "Jesus' disciples" as synonymous with his original direct "twelve disciples." Of course, Bro Jackson could answer that the GB definitely see themselves as modern-day disciples. [Those taught by Jesus.] The GB also definitely see themselves as modern-day "sent-forth ones" which is the meaning of the word "apostles." And they do speak of themselves in several ways as a modern-day parallel to the apostles, or even as a kind of parallel to the small number of men who ended up writing all the books of the Christian Greek Scriptures. But Bro Jackson knew the danger of trying to explain these "parallels" to a non-JW so he steered clear of it by even pointing out that they, the GB, do not consider themselves to be the sole channel (mouthpiece) of truth today. Mr. Stewart had clearly been prepped with the knowledge that the Watchtower has many times pointed to the Watchtower publications and/or the Watchtower Society as the sole channel for dispensing truth today. This idea has been repeated very directly during the time of Russell, Rutherford and Knorr/Franz, but much more subtly in recent publications.