Juan Rivera

I would participate gladly in an open-forum Biblical discussion about what we can learn from Paul's letter to the Galatians. If it can inform our modern day view of the GB that's fine, but I think the view of an ex-JW vs the view of a JW is going to be rather predictable on that count. Nevertheless, I'd say 'go for it.'

When I get something I don’t understand, I print it out on paper, then read it once fot the overall idea. I have ADD and tricky vision.
Then I read it again for detail, underlining and highlighting points, and making arrows over to the margins for notes. 
All during this I try to build a mental picture that makes sense. Visualizing a portrait with a smushed bug makes the problem obvious, so to speak.
Problematic syntax sentences can be diagrammed (which nobody teaches anymore) to determine exactly what is being actually said. Usually this is not what the author meant.
Sometimes I meditate and let the whole thing sit overnight, and read the text the next day.
I PAID to see “2001  -  A Space Odyssey“ nine times, because I didn’t “get it”. It wasn’t until I bought the Screenplay (book) and read it that I understood the movie.
Many times you can wrestle the secrets out of the Universe if you are willing to do the work, and never submit to not understanding.

@Many Miles @Srecko Sostar@George88 @JW Insider Let me know if you guys want to create a new post with this topic in mind (Galatians) here in the open forum or closed.
Here’s two comments. One made by a Jehovah’s Witness and another by a Catholic Philosopher that may shed some light:
Rotherham:
“The Watchtower has never addressed the idea as to what would happen if they apostatized because the notion is considered ridiculous. From what I know of them, I would agree. Going astray is a far cry from apostasy. The organization has been “astray” a number of times. That’s the very reason they change a certain view or teaching or policy, they were astray and they corrected it.
From their standpoint, the notion that they as the GB would apostatize is considered ridiculous. I am not sure why that seems to be such a problem to understand. They are dedicated to the pursuit of Biblical truth and are willing to change their views regardless of the consequences that the change may bring. 
Of course I never stated that such a thing would be impossible, I said it was considered ridiculous. The WT is a self-correcting organization with the Bible as the guideline. All JWs are admonished to let the scriptures be their main guide. The combination of the two would stand as a bulwark against the organization as a whole to fall into apostasy.
As I tried to get you to appreciate, the Bible is the first and foremost guide in a JWs life. Everything else is secondary to the Bible. Within the scriptures there are absolute statements and non-absolute statements. A clear apostate position would be to take a stand against an absolute statement offered in the Bible. I am sure you would agree that there are many. 
Ambiguity or non-absolutes naturally present a difficulty with a clear interpretation, such as prophecy and/or the understanding of certain parabolic features. But if a defined stand were to be made against absolute statements in the Bible, then the result is apostasy as I stated before. 
For instance, if the WT came out and stated that the scriptures are no longer considered inspired of God, that would be clear and defined stand against what the scriptures teach. That would be apostasy, and naturally any Bible believing Christian would walk away from an organization that would promote such and idea, and rightfully so.
Independent thinking is not prohibited in a some wholesale fashion as you seem to want to establish. The entire admonition against independent thinking is within the context of one entertaining and promoting teachings which are not accepted by the GB, who adhere strictly to the scriptures. As I stated, we certainly know that independent thinking is entirely necessary even for a person to live their life meaningfully and with a certain a natural, balanced autonomy. 
And yes, just as the teachings of the Apostles were adhered to in the first century, according to Eph 4:11-17, that same process of gifts of men would be followed until full understanding would be achieved. Teachers, prophets and evangelizers would continue the work of the Apostles that would be responsible for “perfecting/readjusting” the holy ones until that full-grown stature of the church is recognized.
The Bible takes precedent in any teaching within the JW congregations. If there were clear and unquestionable deviation from an established Biblical teaching, if that were maintained and not expeditiously corrected, they would lose God’s favor and be rejected as his earthly organization and God would establish another. Those who appreciate the Bible as the final word would follow as it would naturally result in a schism..
The WT is considered to be like the eyeglass that helps one understand the true teachings from God’s word. It is however, recognized as fallible. The scriptures, as far as they are translated properly, reflect the perfect word of God and the Bible is well known to be our primary textbook. It is infallible and takes full precedent in any understanding, teaching or practice. Therefore, with the Bible at the helm, your above contrived scenario is not an issue.
Although the organization is considered God’s arrangement, that would only be as long as they were devoted to the teachings of the Bible. Just as Israel was rejected for corruption, so could the WT. Israel was God’s nation but became corrupt to the point that God rejected them as a nation. Not individually but as a nation. Jesus told them that the kingdom of God would be taken from them and given to nation producing its fruits.
Those who adhere first to God’s Word would clearly see the reason for their rejection, but as I said, the notion is a purposeful contrivance on your part. The WT has proven faithful in changing as they discern error, as they should. They are lovers of truth and will change as the revelation and clarification of truth continues.This would be in harmony with the idea presented in the parable of the wheat and the weeds.
Besides, one can question what they will. The problem is not questions or doubts, it is the promoting of teachings against what has been accepted by the governing body. In the first century, that was the Apostles as all congregation adhered to the teachings of the Apostles. In the harvest it would be the FDS as mentioned in Matthew or the wheat as mentioned in the prophecy about the wheat and the weeds. Ephesians 4:11-17 would be in full support of that type of arrangement.
 
Edward Feser: 
Fathers have the authority to teach and discipline their children, but this authority is not absolute.  They may not teach their children to do evil, and they may not discipline them with unjust harshness.  Everyone knows this, though everyone also knows that there are fathers who do in fact abuse their children or teach them to do evil.  Everyone also knows that it is right for children under these unhappy circumstances to disobey and reprove their fathers, while still acknowledging their fathers’ authority in general and submitting to his lawful instructions.
All the same, probably no father ever says to his children: “Children, here’s what to do if I ever start to abuse you or teach you to do evil.”  The reason for this is surely that the default assumption is that children will never need to know what to do under such circumstances, and that explicitly addressing it in this way would give them a false and disturbing impression.  Children might start to wonder whether abuse or evil teaching is a likely prospect, and for that reason come to doubt their father’s wisdom and good will. 
Hence, in the typical case, what to do in such a situation is left implicit and vague.  The nature of paternal authority is such that this is the way things should be.  Because the presumption that fathers will not abuse their authority is so strong, and because children need to believe viscerally that this is extremely unlikely to happen, the matter almost never comes up in most families.  There is a downside, of course, which is that on those rare occasions when a father does abuse his authority, children are bound to be confused about how to deal with the situation.  What do you do when the man appointed by nature to be your primary teacher and guardian starts to mislead or harm you?
Now, the papacy is like this.  The Church has no official and explicitly stated policy about how to deal with a pope who teaches error or otherwise abuses his office.  That is not because such error and abuse are not possible.  On the contrary, not only has the Church always allowed for the possibility that a pope can teach error when not speaking ex cathedra and that he can make policy decisions that do grave harm to the faithful, but both of these things have in fact happened on a handful of occasions – for example, the doctrinal errors of Pope Honorius I and Pope John XXII, the ambiguous doctrinal formula temporarily accepted by Pope Liberius, the Cadaver Synod of Pope Stephen VI and its aftermath, and the mistakes of Pope Urban VI that contributed to the Great Western Schism.  (I have discussed these cases here, here, and here.)  
But there is in Catholic theology so strong a presumption against a pope making grave doctrinal and disciplinary errors that, as with a father in relation to his children, it would be potentially misleading and destabilizing explicitly to formulate a policy concerning what to in such a situation.  Hence you won’t find in the Catechism a section on what to do about a bad pope.  The very existence and expression of such a policy might give the false impression that bad popes are bound to arise with some regularity.  
The downside is that on those rare occasions when a bad pope does come along, the Church is bound to be flummoxed.  Many Catholics without theological expertise will wrongly suppose that a Catholic must absolutely always support any policy that a pope implements, or assent to any doctrinal statement that a pope issues – even when such a statement seems manifestly contrary to traditional teaching (as in the cases of Honorius I and John XXII).  This will lead to one of two outcomes, depending on the capacity of such ill-informed Catholics for cognitive dissonance. 
Those who are more prone to react emotionally and less capable of clear and logical reasoning – and thus who are comfortable with embracing contradictions – will tend to go along with the doctrinal or policy errors of such a pope.  Their own understanding and practice of the Faith is going to be impaired as a result.  They are also bound to sow discord in the Church, since they will likely accuse those Catholics who do not embrace the errors of disloyalty and dissent.  By contrast, those who cannot bear such cognitive dissonance are liable to have their faith shaken.  They will wrongly suppose that they are obliged to assent to the errors, but find that they are unable to do so given the manifest conflict with traditional teaching.  They will needlessly worry that this conflict between current and past teaching falsifies the Church’s claim to indefectibility. 
It is important, then, for Catholics to realize that the traditional teaching of the Church has always allowed for the possibility of criticism of a pope who teaches error.  Indeed, such an acknowledgment is there in the New Testament, in St. Paul’s famous public rebuke of St. Peter for conduct that “seemed to indicate a wish to compel the pagan converts to become Jews and accept circumcision and the Jewish law” (as the Catholic Encyclopedia characterizes Peter’s scandalous action).  
 

Your cynicism intrigues me. Could you please clarify your statement about GB's claim that "Jesus did not promise perfect spiritual food"? I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide evidence supporting this assertion. I am eager to read it myself and form an informed opinion, ensuring that there are no misunderstandings regarding the intended meaning of their words.
It seems you missed some important points in my post. I want to emphasize that ex-witnesses are part of our community. Although I may have been overlooked as a poster, I believe my words deserve recognition. Putting that aside, Jesus made an insightful comparison between those who had the chance to "repent" like a tax-collector and those who had already repented but had sinned against God. 
Here's a scenario: If an atheist were to come to your home and, in an attempt to show that person the Bible, that person forcefully takes it from you and strikes you with it, would you still regard that person as your neighbor? Would you consider calling the authorities and subsequently distancing yourself from them, even going as far as shunning them for their aggressive behavior? 
Unless that person sincerely apologizes, repents for their behavior, and asks for forgiveness, it is doubtful that they would be warmly received into your house.
Matthew 9 reveals Jesus' powerful message that anyone, including tax collectors, can find redemption through repentance. On the other hand, Matthew 18 teaches us that Christians who have strayed from their commitment to God must seek his guidance and forgiveness. In this regard, it is important to recognize that we should not judge or criticize those who faithfully adhere to God's commandments, no matter how much we may disagree with the methods described in scripture. As followers of Christ, we cannot selectively accept or reject parts of the Bible based on personal preference.

Mr. Srecko, the authority of God surpasses all other authorities. When God allows governments to rule over us, it is our moral duty to submit ourselves to that authority. If God permits spiritual leaders to oversee his flock, then according to the same interpretation of scripture, it is our moral duty to wholeheartedly follow that authority, particularly if that authority has been chosen by God Himself.
During Jesus' time, the prevailing authority among the Jews were the Pharisees. However, did Jesus instruct the people to defy them? No! This is clearly stated in Matthew 23:3. Does this imply that a spiritual leader cannot be questioned? Absolutely not. The role of a spiritual leader is to validate scripture through their actions and by embracing the will of God in their words. If a leader fails to do so, it is God who will reveal it. It is God who will pass judgment, not the congregation or any individual who disapproves of how the spiritual leader is overseeing God's house. 
Spiritual leaders are called to lead by example and guide others in their spiritual journey. (Ephesians 4:14). However, if a leader fails to uphold the principles they preach, it is God who ultimately reveals the truth. The congregation or individuals may express their disapproval, but it is important to remember that the final judgment lies with God. It is God's role to pass judgment, not ours. In this case, one could argue that you are mistaken. However, the truth is different. The congregation should not be seen as a body of Elders, as it has not been given such a role. It is important to note that during Jesus' trial, it was the Pharisees and high priests who brought him before Pilate, not the people. These were individuals in positions of authority. When Pilate gave the people the opportunity to choose who should be freed, and they selected Barabbas instead of Jesus, it was not an act of passing judgement on Christ.
It is crucial for spiritual leaders and their followers to continually seek alignment with God's will, practicing discernment and holding each other accountable. However, it is God who has the final say and who will ultimately reveal any discrepancies between a leader's words and actions.
Those who claim to be Christians but do not adhere to the principles established by God and Christ are disregarding the solemn oath they make after being baptized. Baptism represents a deeply personal commitment to God, promising to obey him and submit their lives to his authority, following His commands faithfully. 
In this scenario, the concept of authority and authenticity can be subjective and based on personal interpretation. Each individual may have their own criteria for determining the legitimacy of an authority figure. 
However, the idea of unity often transcends the individual, as it involves aligning with a collective purpose or goal. When we strive for unity, the focus shifts from 'I' to 'we'. It emphasizes the importance of collaboration, cooperation, and mutual understanding among individuals. Unity acknowledges the interconnectedness of all members within a group or society, irrespective of their personal beliefs or differences. Unity can promote solidarity, harmony, and common purpose. It encourages individuals to set aside personal agendas and work together towards shared objectives. 
Unity refers to the oneness and harmony between individuals who choose to submit to God's authority. The notion of "I" or individual autonomy becomes subordinate to the higher authority of God. When one recognizes God's authority, they willingly surrender their own desires and preferences in order to align with his will. 
Obedience to God's authority is not a matter of personal choice or subjective authenticity. Rather, it is a fundamental belief that God's authority is absolute and infallible, and therefore, worthy of complete obedience and submission. It goes beyond individual perspectives and preferences. Unity in obedience to God's authority is founded on the premise that God's wisdom and guidance surpass human understanding and judgment. 
It acknowledges that God's authority is inherently authentic and divine, and therefore, supersedes any other humanly-constructed authority. This unity brings together individuals who share a common understanding and acceptance of God's authority, creating a collective synergy driven by a shared commitment to follow His teachings and commands. 
By recognizing the greater good and finding common ground, unity promotes inclusivity and collective progress.
However, it is crucial to maintain a balance between unity and personal autonomy. While unity encourages collaboration and consensus-building, it should also allow space for individuality, free-thinking, and diverse perspectives. The idea of unity should not suppress or silence individual voices, but rather foster an environment where individuals are respected and their views are valued. It does not mean that we lose our individuality. Quite the contrary. Embracing spiritual maturity is crucial if we want to recognize when our spiritual leaders are adhering to the principles of scripture, just as the congregation does. Romans 13:1-2
Romans 13:1-2 states, "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore, whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment." When looking at the context of these verses, we understand that Paul is addressing the believers in Rome and their relationship with the governing authorities. He emphasizes the importance of respecting and submitting to the authorities that God has established. 
Embracing spiritual maturity does not mean that we lose our individuality. It means understanding that our faith and personal beliefs should guide us in recognizing and respecting the authorities that God has placed in our lives. It means growing in our ability to discern whether the actions of our spiritual leaders align with the principles of scripture. Spiritual maturity brings a deeper understanding of God's Word and enables us to make wise and discerning choices. 
It allows us to hold our spiritual leaders accountable to the teachings of scripture while still respecting their authority. We are called to be individuals who think critically, seek truth, and ensure that our actions align with the principles of our faith. 
Finally, the concept of unity in this scenario arises when individuals relinquish their personal autonomy and align themselves with God's authority, recognizing it as the ultimate truth and source of wisdom. In doing so, they prioritize obedience to God's authority above all other forms of authority and work towards a harmonious collective that is guided by His principles.
 

@Pudgy I wish that was true. Believe me, I really do, it would of made my life so much easier growing up and I would of avoid so much heartache and suffering and could of used that time energy and efforts and investing it in the ministry helping others.
But If that were true, disagreement regarding which doctrines are essential could be due only to illiteracy or malice. But when we engage in on-the-ground dialogue with Christians in other interpretive traditions, we find that the people with whom we disagree on such matters are generally neither unintelligent nor malicious. That implies that resolving the disagreements regarding which doctrines are essential is not as simple as pointing to Bible verses. Otherwise, after the last five centuries of reading and studying Scripture, then even if there was not an initial agreement concerning the meaning of Scripture, there should be at least a convergence of biblical interpretations among all students of Scripture. Instead there has been a continual multiplication of doctrinal disagreements among the various traditions. For these reasons, Scripture alone is not capable of answering the "essentials" question.
We have a five-hundred-year experiment called Protestantism. Protestant history is a history of fragmentation upon fragmentation, dividing not over what was believed to be secondary issues by those separating, but over what was believed to be orthodoxy and heresy. People do not break unity over issues they themselves believe to be secondary, indifferent adiaphora. Someone could claim that in each such case someone was failing to engage in honest exegesis, but it seems to me that such a claim would be ad hoc. There is no good reason to believe that in each case of  fragmentation, one or both sides were being dishonest in their exegesis of Scripture. The evidence is to the contrary. Likewise, someone could claim that in each case of fragmentation one or both sides did not have the spirit. But again, that would be ad hoc. Moreover, honest exegesis in the present is not bringing denominations back together. Given all the exegetical work published in academic journals and books over the last few centuries, which denominations have reconciled because of it? None if any. And again, it would be ad hoc to claim that they are not doing so only because of dishonesty or exegetical ignorance. Do we see all New Testament scholars moving toward one denomination’s theological position, over the past 500 years? No. All this shows that personal interpretation of Scripture is not a reliable way of distinguishing fully and accurately between orthodoxy and heresy.

@Pudgy I hear you, but here’s  what worries me about that simplicity principle you mention and then I’ll leave you alone. Either you are using simplicity as a criterion for truth, or not. If you are, that's using a human-derived criterion (i.e. human philosophy) to judge what content gets to count as divine revelation. That's making 'divine revelation' in your own image. On the other hand, if you're not using simplicity as a criterion for truth, then there is no reason (other than rhetorical) to appeal to simplicity as a reason to adopt your own view rather than the JW perspective.
The working philosophical assumption that theology and ecclesiology must all be simple it’s an assumption which the person is presupposing that it all must be simple, and that because what I'm saying includes digging deeper into things, therefore it cannot be true, because it is not simple, or at least as simple as your position. But that’s just making theology conform to your own philosophical presuppositions, rather than being open as a child to whatever level of complexity, sophistication or simplicity is to be found in Jehovah’s self revelation. It is  his revelation, not our creation. So if we are to be open in faith, we have to be open to whatever God reveals, rather than try to force it into our preconceived notions concerning what it must be like. So if Jesus established a congregation with a Governing body, and entrusted to her the scriptures, then persons of faith should embrace it rather than reject it and replace it with something simpler. Given your simplicity principle, any person could reject your theology as too complex, and replace it with simpler theology still. There is always someone with a position simpler than one’s own.
So let me leave you with one last thought to think about and perhaps you can see where I would like to focus my efforts and attention in the closed forum or elsewhere. I believe once you and other current and former Witnesses start seeing this distinction, it would be the equivalent of "taking the red pill” or leaving the set of "The Truman Show".
It seems to me that if we are not going to worry with distinguishing false teachings from true teachings , then while we might possibly continue to argue that there are grounds for thinking that Jehovah has communicated something to mankind, somewhere at some time (i.e. given a revelation), a stance of ambivalence with respect to the need to distinguishing which current explanatory or descriptive accounts of that revelation match what Jehovah intended men to know (true teachings), over against errant disfigurements of what Jehovah intended men to know (false beliefs), has the practical effect of undermining the very notion or purpose of any divine revelation at all. 
Such a stance explicitly, and in principle, shrouds the content which Jehovah intended to reveal within a cloak of human opinion from which it cannot escape to reach the mind of any modern seeker as a revelation from Jehovah distinct from some other fellow human’s opinion. And this would mean that the purported answers concerning human meaning and destiny which Christianity claims to provide are just opinions and can, therefore, command our assent no more than the thousands of other competing truth claims about human purpose and destiny which are all around us in a pluralistic society. The Good News reduces to an opinion column and so becomes old news. If all Christianity has to offer modern man is yet another wacky set of notions about Jehovah, afterlife, morality, etc. – then to hell with it. The whole point of a “revealed” religion is to offer truth claims which ostensibly stand in contrast to what man can know, or guess at, on his own. Hence, a revealed religion which simultaneously, and in principle, claims that what God intended to communicate to men via revelation is no longer decipherable beyond the level of that same human opinion to which we all had access before ever exploring revealed religion, simply defeats the very purpose of revealed religion. 
What is special about the Good News, or the deliverances of Christianity regarding human meaning and destiny, if we give up on the distinction between True beliefs and false ones? I, for one, cannot say.
Regards,
 
 
 

@Pudgy Feel free to call the five absolute true statements of the Bible as Gobbledygook. The stakes are far too high to treat this as a game, and treating as profane what is consecrated to God is the sin of sacrilege, which is grave matter, so  I don't need to spell out the seriousness of that error.
@Pudgy When each person is deciding for himself what is the correct interpretation of Scripture, Scripture is no longer functioning as the final authority. Rather, each individual's own reason and judgment becomes, as it were, the highest authority, supplanting in effect Scripture' unique and rightful place. That approach results in us becoming a law unto ourselves and Scripture is interpreted according to our conscience and reason. Everything is evaluated according to our final standard and "opinion" of what is and is not scriptural. We, not Scripture, is the real final authority according this approach. The Bible nowhere gives any hint of wanting every individual believer to decide for himself and by himself what is and is not the true meaning of Scripture.
Following what I said in a previous post, Congregations/ Churches can maintain natural authority, just as the leaders and laws of voluntary civic societies have natural authority over those who wish to be members of such societies. This sort of authority, however, can never bind the conscience in an unqualified way, but it can bind the conscience regarding what one must do if one wishes to participate in that congregation or civic society.
The state is a natural society, but the Congregation is a supernatural society. Authority in the natural order is divinely established, as the New Testament teaches. For this reason, kings, princes, presidents and mayors are to be obeyed, unless they command us to violate our conscience,  or to violate the divine law. Voluntary civic societies also can have internal laws, and hence dutifully appointed leaders. Anyone who wishes to participate in such societies must be subject to these leaders and laws. This is true of sporting leagues, philanthropic organizations, educational organizations, etc. But the authority had by the leaders and laws of voluntary civic societies is still natural authority, i.e. on the natural order. It is divine only in the providential sense, not in the supernatural sense. It remains at the level of nature. Hierarchy and authority are natural to human society, whether that society be the immediate society into which we are born (i.e. the family), the larger society into which we are born (e.g. USA), or voluntary societies which we form or enter (e.g. Rotary Club).
Human opinion remains human opinion, whether it is private or public, held by one person or held by a group of persons. Take a group of persons each having the same theological opinion. They discover that they share this opinion, form a club, and then make adherence to this theological opinion a condition for continued membership in their club. Their opinion has not thereby acquired any divine authority just because this group of persons made adherence to this opinion a condition for club membership. Rather, the club leaders having the [merely human] authority to exclude others from this club (as do leaders of the Elks club, the Rotary club, etc.), are exercising their own authority in making adherence to this opinion a necessary condition for club membership.
Thus the so-called 'authority' of the theological opinion is in actuality a cover for the governing authority of the club leaders, masking the actual locus of authority. That would be ok if the club leaders were divinely authorized to determine which theological opinions are orthodox and which are not. But, if the club leaders don't have such authority (and don't claim to have such authority), then the club and its theological opinion are no more authoritative than any other person's opinion. It is just a club, and since its leaders have no divine authority, their theological opinion has no divine authority. Their theological opinion is a condition for membership in that club, but it is still only an opinion of men.
@Srecko Sostar I have no interest in your legal and lawyer arguments, I deal with theology.
Now, you know that I am Jehovah’s Witness, not a good at that, but still identify as one. Our relation to the act of consent of becoming a Witness, can take one of two forms. Either we inherit it by being born into it (like a child born into a religion), or we choose to participate in that act of consent (either by joining the institution or by forming an institution). But even the child eventually chooses either to participate in that act of consent (by remaining in the institution) or not (by leaving that institution). So ultimately, if ecclesial authority comes from man, then it has its ground in the consent of the individual. In other words, if ecclesial authority comes from man, then its authority over me is grounded in my consent. If I do not consent to the authenticity of that ecclesial authority, then it has no authority over me. That is precisely why your local Episcopalian priest, Presbyterian pastor, Baptist pastor, Catholic priest, charismatic pastor, etc. have no authority over you or me. You have not consented to their authority, and thus not given them authority over you.
One does not sign a legal contract when one joins a church. That is why anyone in the Jehovah's Witness community or  Catholic or Mormons or any of the 8,000 denominations can (and should) leave as soon as he realizes that it’s  not in the true Congregation that Christ established, but in a counterfeit institution. Even if Catholics, Evangelicals etc.… or JWs or Mormons did sign legal contracts upon becoming members, they should violate those contracts as soon as they recognize that they are false religious institutions. No one is under an obligation to fulfill an oath that would require injustice to fulfill. We are not to give ourselves to false shepherds, or false religious institutions. We should give ourselves (in religion) only to the Congregation Christ established. That is why all false religious institutions have no actual authority, for men not only owe others (i.e. the true shepherds) the obedience that these false shepherds illicitly receive, but men are required by God not to give their obedience to false shepherds.
On another note, when I hear people say that they just want people to be "faithful to the word of God," what they really mean is that they want them to be faithful to their own interpretation of Scripture. And that is why there is an implicit presumption of governing authority in the very claim they are making. As for statements about conscience, of course I agree that a person must never violate their conscience. But, a person with a poorly formed conscience can do much evil without violating his conscience. And therefore it is incumbent upon us all to seek to inform our conscience, so that it may be a more reliable guide.
A large portion of Christians, including believing Ex-JWs at some level resonate with Luther's statement at the Diet of worms, "My conscience is captive to the word of God, and it is neither safe nor wise to act in violation of one's conscience." Precisely. This is the fundamental principle of this framework, the principle of the individual as his own ultimate interpretive authority.
 
 

I don’t understand what you mean Pudgy😔 … sigh….

@Pudgy Let me try one last time. To boil it down for convenience, my central argument has been that, without an infallible interpreter of divine revelation, we would have no way of distinguishing between what's objectively divine revelation and what's only human opinion about the scope and interpretation of the sources. That distinction is not primarily about how we attain certainty. Rather, my argument is about how we identify the primary subject matter of theology, i.e. divine revelation itself. Now if the subject matter of theology were primarily a set of texts and practices, make that set as broad or narrow as you please, then theology would be just like other disciplines such as philosophy, history, and sociology. Accordingly, it would not require positing inerrancy or infallibility. We would study the texts and practices, come to reasonable but provisional conclusions about their truth and/or value, and call some of our conclusions our theology. That's the methodology in departments of "religious studies."
I spent some time in that methodology when I was younger, and I learned things thereby. But as Christians we know that such a merely human discipline does not suffice for the purpose at hand. Thus, even though it often utilizes methods of inquiry like those of other disciplines, theology itself is not like other disciplines. What we're after in theology strictly speaking, as distinct from natural theology, which is a branch of metaphysics, is identifying the content of something we could never know or identify just by human inquiry, i.e. what Jehovah has revealed. And we take for granted that Jehovah is "infallible," in the sense that he knows whatever can be known, and can neither deceive nor be deceived. So, we want to know how to identify what Jehovah himself has revealed, as distinct from, but not always as opposed to, what mere man has said or done about him. The latter is not protected from error, and hence cannot be relied on for knowledge of what Jehovah has revealed.
In the nature of the case, knowledge of something as divine revelation can only be attained by recognizing certain sources of information as produced or authorized by God and thus protected by him from error. My argument is not over that point, but over the scope of those sources. 
Given as much, another way of putting my central argument is this: Without a living body that is divinely authorized to speak with divine and thus infallible authority, we would have no way of distinguishing reliably between theology and religious studies. That's because we would not even have a way of definitively settling the question what the relevant sources of transmission are, much less what they mean. You might personally choose to regard a certain set of texts, i.e. “Scripture," as the inerrant "Word of God," which is what you do; you might regard certain early interpreters of those texts as pretty reliable guides to interpreting them, which you also seem to do; you might even recognize certain traditions and concrete practices as relevant sources of information, which you could do consistently with your position. But your grounds for doing so would be human reasoning and opinion alone, not the teaching of any living body whose leadership we recognize as authorized by God to speak definitively in his name. Hence, all your conclusions would remain fallible and provisional. But you don't seem any more content with that than I am, nor should you be. That is why I've said to you before that your only alternatives to such an infallible interpretive authority are "rationalism" or "enthusiasm," whose concrete correlates would be an academic governing body. There is no third alternative that does not reduce to one of those two, or to some ramshackle combination thereof, such as (JW insider)  (if I’m not mistaken) idea that the scope and meaning of the biblical canon can be recognized with certainty by a combination of literary/historical analysis and the inner promptings of the holy spirit.
 
Hopefully that clears up what I’ve been meaning to say. Thank you for you time, I’m bowing out.

@Srecko Sostar “Inspiration”is a technical term that refers to the inspiration of scripture and that term is used in 2 Timothy 3:16 and that’s the only place the bible uses that word: Inspiration. It refers to the written or verbal revelation that Jehovah gave. Guidance(spirit led) refers to the holy spirit prompting to truth. In Acts 15 the apostles are speaking on their own authority given by Christ, and they are deemed with this authority because they are the ones taking the lead and governing the church. The reason they can do that is because they are guided by the holy spirit, but is not because of inspiration. Claiming they were inspired in Acts 15 when the passage nowhere mentions they were inspired its an unfounded deduction. This is similar to the Apostles in the first ten to fifteen years of the Congregation (before any Scripture was written), when exercising their authority over the Christian congregation as their appointed representatives, and yet not speaking inspired Scripture.
I think you are equating inspiration, with the assistance of the holy spirit. The holy spirit works in and through the fallible Christian congregation not apart from it nor does it dispense with the human factor.  With respect to the notion of the holy spirit’s  guidance of the Governing Body, the events of the Jerusalem council in Acts can again be helpful. It is important to understand that the spirits guidance of the Governing Body  is not to be thought of as magical or mystical, or in any manifest way noticeable in the concrete reality of the Governing body’s activity. The spirits guidance is more subtle, powerful, and comprehensive than that. In reading the account of the gathering and conducting of the Jerusalem council, there does not appear to be anything especially divine about how the proceedings develop. There is heated argumentation and debate, and finally, after various opinions and objections had been placed on the table, those taking the lead (James and Peter)speak and make something like an executive decision with respect to the question of circumcision. From a purely human point of view, it does not appear to be much different from what one might encounter in a Fortune 500 board room. And yet, when the decision or decrees of the council are drawn up for promulgation to the various congregations, it includes a rather extraordinary claim regarding the identity of one of the parties involved in the process. For it begins: “it seemed good to the holy spirit and to us”. This correspondence between the activity of the Governing Body and the spirit in promulgating definitive teaching is the prototype for all their activity going forward.
 

@Pudgy Feel free to call the five absolute true statements of the Bible as Gobbledygook. The stakes are far too high to treat this as a game, and treating as profane what is consecrated to God is the sin of sacrilege, which is grave matter, so  I don't need to spell out the seriousness of that error.
@Pudgy When each person is deciding for himself what is the correct interpretation of Scripture, Scripture is no longer functioning as the final authority. Rather, each individual's own reason and judgment becomes, as it were, the highest authority, supplanting in effect Scripture' unique and rightful place. That approach results in us becoming a law unto ourselves and Scripture is interpreted according to our conscience and reason. Everything is evaluated according to our final standard and "opinion" of what is and is not scriptural. We, not Scripture, is the real final authority according this approach. The Bible nowhere gives any hint of wanting every individual believer to decide for himself and by himself what is and is not the true meaning of Scripture.
Following what I said in a previous post, Congregations/ Churches can maintain natural authority, just as the leaders and laws of voluntary civic societies have natural authority over those who wish to be members of such societies. This sort of authority, however, can never bind the conscience in an unqualified way, but it can bind the conscience regarding what one must do if one wishes to participate in that congregation or civic society.
The state is a natural society, but the Congregation is a supernatural society. Authority in the natural order is divinely established, as the New Testament teaches. For this reason, kings, princes, presidents and mayors are to be obeyed, unless they command us to violate our conscience,  or to violate the divine law. Voluntary civic societies also can have internal laws, and hence dutifully appointed leaders. Anyone who wishes to participate in such societies must be subject to these leaders and laws. This is true of sporting leagues, philanthropic organizations, educational organizations, etc. But the authority had by the leaders and laws of voluntary civic societies is still natural authority, i.e. on the natural order. It is divine only in the providential sense, not in the supernatural sense. It remains at the level of nature. Hierarchy and authority are natural to human society, whether that society be the immediate society into which we are born (i.e. the family), the larger society into which we are born (e.g. USA), or voluntary societies which we form or enter (e.g. Rotary Club).
Human opinion remains human opinion, whether it is private or public, held by one person or held by a group of persons. Take a group of persons each having the same theological opinion. They discover that they share this opinion, form a club, and then make adherence to this theological opinion a condition for continued membership in their club. Their opinion has not thereby acquired any divine authority just because this group of persons made adherence to this opinion a condition for club membership. Rather, the club leaders having the [merely human] authority to exclude others from this club (as do leaders of the Elks club, the Rotary club, etc.), are exercising their own authority in making adherence to this opinion a necessary condition for club membership.
Thus the so-called 'authority' of the theological opinion is in actuality a cover for the governing authority of the club leaders, masking the actual locus of authority. That would be ok if the club leaders were divinely authorized to determine which theological opinions are orthodox and which are not. But, if the club leaders don't have such authority (and don't claim to have such authority), then the club and its theological opinion are no more authoritative than any other person's opinion. It is just a club, and since its leaders have no divine authority, their theological opinion has no divine authority. Their theological opinion is a condition for membership in that club, but it is still only an opinion of men.
@Srecko Sostar I have no interest in your legal and lawyer arguments, I deal with theology.
Now, you know that I am Jehovah’s Witness, not a good at that, but still identify as one. Our relation to the act of consent of becoming a Witness, can take one of two forms. Either we inherit it by being born into it (like a child born into a religion), or we choose to participate in that act of consent (either by joining the institution or by forming an institution). But even the child eventually chooses either to participate in that act of consent (by remaining in the institution) or not (by leaving that institution). So ultimately, if ecclesial authority comes from man, then it has its ground in the consent of the individual. In other words, if ecclesial authority comes from man, then its authority over me is grounded in my consent. If I do not consent to the authenticity of that ecclesial authority, then it has no authority over me. That is precisely why your local Episcopalian priest, Presbyterian pastor, Baptist pastor, Catholic priest, charismatic pastor, etc. have no authority over you or me. You have not consented to their authority, and thus not given them authority over you.
One does not sign a legal contract when one joins a church. That is why anyone in the Jehovah's Witness community or  Catholic or Mormons or any of the 8,000 denominations can (and should) leave as soon as he realizes that it’s  not in the true Congregation that Christ established, but in a counterfeit institution. Even if Catholics, Evangelicals etc.… or JWs or Mormons did sign legal contracts upon becoming members, they should violate those contracts as soon as they recognize that they are false religious institutions. No one is under an obligation to fulfill an oath that would require injustice to fulfill. We are not to give ourselves to false shepherds, or false religious institutions. We should give ourselves (in religion) only to the Congregation Christ established. That is why all false religious institutions have no actual authority, for men not only owe others (i.e. the true shepherds) the obedience that these false shepherds illicitly receive, but men are required by God not to give their obedience to false shepherds.
On another note, when I hear people say that they just want people to be "faithful to the word of God," what they really mean is that they want them to be faithful to their own interpretation of Scripture. And that is why there is an implicit presumption of governing authority in the very claim they are making. As for statements about conscience, of course I agree that a person must never violate their conscience. But, a person with a poorly formed conscience can do much evil without violating his conscience. And therefore it is incumbent upon us all to seek to inform our conscience, so that it may be a more reliable guide.
A large portion of Christians, including believing Ex-JWs at some level resonate with Luther's statement at the Diet of worms, "My conscience is captive to the word of God, and it is neither safe nor wise to act in violation of one's conscience." Precisely. This is the fundamental principle of this framework, the principle of the individual as his own ultimate interpretive authority.
 
 

@Pudgy Feel free to call the five absolute true statements of the Bible as Gobbledygook. The stakes are far too high to treat this as a game, and treating as profane what is consecrated to God is the sin of sacrilege, which is grave matter, so  I don't need to spell out the seriousness of that error.
@Pudgy When each person is deciding for himself what is the correct interpretation of Scripture, Scripture is no longer functioning as the final authority. Rather, each individual's own reason and judgment becomes, as it were, the highest authority, supplanting in effect Scripture' unique and rightful place. That approach results in us becoming a law unto ourselves and Scripture is interpreted according to our conscience and reason. Everything is evaluated according to our final standard and "opinion" of what is and is not scriptural. We, not Scripture, is the real final authority according this approach. The Bible nowhere gives any hint of wanting every individual believer to decide for himself and by himself what is and is not the true meaning of Scripture.
Following what I said in a previous post, Congregations/ Churches can maintain natural authority, just as the leaders and laws of voluntary civic societies have natural authority over those who wish to be members of such societies. This sort of authority, however, can never bind the conscience in an unqualified way, but it can bind the conscience regarding what one must do if one wishes to participate in that congregation or civic society.
The state is a natural society, but the Congregation is a supernatural society. Authority in the natural order is divinely established, as the New Testament teaches. For this reason, kings, princes, presidents and mayors are to be obeyed, unless they command us to violate our conscience,  or to violate the divine law. Voluntary civic societies also can have internal laws, and hence dutifully appointed leaders. Anyone who wishes to participate in such societies must be subject to these leaders and laws. This is true of sporting leagues, philanthropic organizations, educational organizations, etc. But the authority had by the leaders and laws of voluntary civic societies is still natural authority, i.e. on the natural order. It is divine only in the providential sense, not in the supernatural sense. It remains at the level of nature. Hierarchy and authority are natural to human society, whether that society be the immediate society into which we are born (i.e. the family), the larger society into which we are born (e.g. USA), or voluntary societies which we form or enter (e.g. Rotary Club).
Human opinion remains human opinion, whether it is private or public, held by one person or held by a group of persons. Take a group of persons each having the same theological opinion. They discover that they share this opinion, form a club, and then make adherence to this theological opinion a condition for continued membership in their club. Their opinion has not thereby acquired any divine authority just because this group of persons made adherence to this opinion a condition for club membership. Rather, the club leaders having the [merely human] authority to exclude others from this club (as do leaders of the Elks club, the Rotary club, etc.), are exercising their own authority in making adherence to this opinion a necessary condition for club membership.
Thus the so-called 'authority' of the theological opinion is in actuality a cover for the governing authority of the club leaders, masking the actual locus of authority. That would be ok if the club leaders were divinely authorized to determine which theological opinions are orthodox and which are not. But, if the club leaders don't have such authority (and don't claim to have such authority), then the club and its theological opinion are no more authoritative than any other person's opinion. It is just a club, and since its leaders have no divine authority, their theological opinion has no divine authority. Their theological opinion is a condition for membership in that club, but it is still only an opinion of men.
@Srecko Sostar I have no interest in your legal and lawyer arguments, I deal with theology.
Now, you know that I am Jehovah’s Witness, not a good at that, but still identify as one. Our relation to the act of consent of becoming a Witness, can take one of two forms. Either we inherit it by being born into it (like a child born into a religion), or we choose to participate in that act of consent (either by joining the institution or by forming an institution). But even the child eventually chooses either to participate in that act of consent (by remaining in the institution) or not (by leaving that institution). So ultimately, if ecclesial authority comes from man, then it has its ground in the consent of the individual. In other words, if ecclesial authority comes from man, then its authority over me is grounded in my consent. If I do not consent to the authenticity of that ecclesial authority, then it has no authority over me. That is precisely why your local Episcopalian priest, Presbyterian pastor, Baptist pastor, Catholic priest, charismatic pastor, etc. have no authority over you or me. You have not consented to their authority, and thus not given them authority over you.
One does not sign a legal contract when one joins a church. That is why anyone in the Jehovah's Witness community or  Catholic or Mormons or any of the 8,000 denominations can (and should) leave as soon as he realizes that it’s  not in the true Congregation that Christ established, but in a counterfeit institution. Even if Catholics, Evangelicals etc.… or JWs or Mormons did sign legal contracts upon becoming members, they should violate those contracts as soon as they recognize that they are false religious institutions. No one is under an obligation to fulfill an oath that would require injustice to fulfill. We are not to give ourselves to false shepherds, or false religious institutions. We should give ourselves (in religion) only to the Congregation Christ established. That is why all false religious institutions have no actual authority, for men not only owe others (i.e. the true shepherds) the obedience that these false shepherds illicitly receive, but men are required by God not to give their obedience to false shepherds.
On another note, when I hear people say that they just want people to be "faithful to the word of God," what they really mean is that they want them to be faithful to their own interpretation of Scripture. And that is why there is an implicit presumption of governing authority in the very claim they are making. As for statements about conscience, of course I agree that a person must never violate their conscience. But, a person with a poorly formed conscience can do much evil without violating his conscience. And therefore it is incumbent upon us all to seek to inform our conscience, so that it may be a more reliable guide.
A large portion of Christians, including believing Ex-JWs at some level resonate with Luther's statement at the Diet of worms, "My conscience is captive to the word of God, and it is neither safe nor wise to act in violation of one's conscience." Precisely. This is the fundamental principle of this framework, the principle of the individual as his own ultimate interpretive authority.
 
 

Every time we appeal to the Bible, we are appealing to an interpretation of the Bible. The only real question is: whose interpretation? People with differing interpretations cannot set a Bible on a table and ask it to resolve their differences. In order for the the Bible to function as an authority, it must be read and interpreted by someone. The person who fails to recognize this is failing to know himself.
Obeying Jehovah 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, we must not follow rebellious leaders in their rebellion against God. We cannot justifiably rebel against the Lord’s anointed when he sins, except if he were to command us to believe or do something that contradicted prior authoritative teachings, in which case witnesses must not follow them. The standard for obedience to God isn’t one’s own interpretation of Scripture, such that any brother taking the lead who doesn’t conform to one’s own interpretation of Scripture is by that very act in rebellion and therefore can rightfully be disregarded.
In my experience many of the criticisms that you and others have mentioned do not take into account, nor make the distinctions between the different declarations that the Governing body makes and the answer those declarations require of Jehovah's Witnesses. 
So you must distinguish between the Governing Body’s  teachings on faith and morals on the one hand, and on the other hand prudential judgments, disciplines, or practices. 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? 
Not all of the Governing Body's declarations have the same level of authority and not all of them are open to the same conditions. What do I mean by that? Well, some declarations deal with provisional aspects of policies, practices, worship, prudential judgements and discipline. This category always has space to be better formulated, clarified and defined. It would be an oversimplification to think that either we must submit to all the teaching statements of the governing body or that we are entitled to disagree from anything not formally taught. But it wouldn’t be an exaggeration to state that as Witnesses we are expected to give our private and public assent to the Governing body’s teachings. Sometimes we are giving prudential admonitions or judgments by the GB and congregation elders. Other times we receive concrete applications of biblical principles. We should give serious consideration and attention to these, but we can legitimately differ or disagree. Some of our teachings have different status of obligatory force, not all of them are in the same category or levels of authority. For example, when the Governing Body departs from or changes some prudential measure observed previously, they are not necessarily saying that they were wrong before. They can be saying that this is what they believe Jehovah is calling them to do in this present time for some particular reason.  Even if it were to turn out that they are wrong that Jehovah is calling them to these actions or that it is prudential for them to take these actions at this time. It does not mean that the way things were handled before are wrong or incompatible with the way things are handled now. Such measures can be for a particular person, or a particular season, because of what it is needed for a particular time or circumstance.

I should point out that you misunderstood what I said as though I were suggesting that only the Governing Body is the Congregation. That is not what I was saying or implying. The divinely appointed shepherds of the Congregation are a very important organ in the body of Christ, but they are not the whole body. 
When the Bible speaks about the Congregation and its prerogatives to judge, you will find, for example, in Acts 5:1-6 when Annanias and Saphira were judged by Peter as hoarding money, with the result that they were struck dead on the spot. Acts 15, as I said in an earlier post, speaks of the Apostles and elders judging whether Christians could partake in various practices. 1 Cor 5:1-11 speaks of Paul judging the man caught in fornication and telling the elders to remove him from the Congregation. There are many more such instances. Peter and Paul are not acting independently, but as leaders of the Congregation of that day. And thus, whatever Congregation you think existed back then, it was the Congregation that was judging individuals.
I agree that Jehovah was not bound to do it this way. Jehovah, being omnipotent, could have done it other ways. He could have set up His Congregation such that it had no visible hierarchy, and each man was guided entirely by the holy spirit through his own reading of Scripture. But, that would be entirely unfitting to human nature. We are social beings, and our nature is expressed in societies, as Aristotle explains in his Politics. In addition, Jehovah delights in allowing us to participate in His work, and by setting up a hierarchy, Jehovah and Jesus have given men the gift of participating in many unique ways in the extension of their work, with their authorization. The Body is an extension of the Head. The Apostles and those taking the lead have been given the great gift of participating in a very special way in the work of Christ, governing Christ’s Congregation, sharing in ministry, and guarding and providing the interpretation of the faith.
Ecclesial egalitarianism with respect to interpretive authority is precisely the individualism that makes each man his own Governing Body. The decision of the Jerusalem council (of Acts 15) was definitely more authoritative than any Bob or Joe's interpretation of Scripture opposing that council's decision. (I'm hoping that we at least agree on that point.) 
If Christ's ecclesial setup was that each Christian has a direct, unmediated pipeline to God regarding the truth of the content of the gospel and the proper interpretation of Scripture and the distinction between orthodoxy and heresy, such that there was no need for Apostles and elders but something like Montanism were true, then Christ wouldn't have chosen, trained, authorized and commissioned Apostles. Instead, on the day of Pentecost each person would have been zapped by the holy spirit directly, and there never would have been a Jerusalem Council, because the spirit would have already guided all Christians to the same position, so the resolution of the dispute at the Council would have been unnecessary. In fact, you and I wouldn't be in disagreement right now, because the spirit would have already guided us into the very same unity of the faith. Presumably, your response will be that either I'm not listening to the spirit, or that I'm not being reasonable, one of the two. Well, if you think I'm not being reasonable, feel free to show where and how. But if you think I'm not listening to the spirit (but you are listening to the spirit), then we need to talk about how we know who is really following the spirit, and who is co opting the spirit to support their own opinion.

Are these sincere questions, or merely rhetorical questions intended to scandalize (i.e. cause to stumble) those seeking to find Christ’s Congregation? If you have sincere questions I’ll be glad to answer them. But if your questions are merely rhetorical, then please refrain from making use of such questions. Questions do not establish anything, nor are they a substitute for an argument. That is sophistry and it suggests insincerity and an unwillingness to make a positive case.

@Srecko Sostar Your cynicism It’s not a consequence of Ecclesiastes 8:9. JW’s teach that “the existing authorities” can be said to “stand placed in their relative positions by God.” Relative to Jehovah’s supreme sovereign authority, theirs is by far a lesser authority. However, they are “God’s minister,” “God’s public servants,” in that they provide necessary services, maintain law and order, and punish evildoers. (Romans 13:1,4, 6) https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/library/r1/lp-e/all-publications/watchtower/the-watchtower-1996/may-1
People outside of the JW community are capable of imitating God righteousness and mercy: “The apostle Paul comments on the conscience, or at least a vestige of such, that still persists in fallen man, even though in many cases he has strayed from God and does not have his law. This explains why all nations have established many laws that are in harmony with righteousness and justice, and many individuals follow certain good principles. Paul says: “For whenever people of the nations that do not have law do by nature the things of the law, these people, although not having law, are a law to themselves. They are the very ones who demonstrate the matter of the law to be written in their hearts, while their conscience is bearing witness with them and, between their own thoughts, they are being accused or even excused.”—Rom. 2:14, 15. https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/publication/r1/lp-e/ad/3090
Here’s what you are missing about human nature : Unity with non-Christians is not something to be desired (other than to convert them), but we need to distinguish between different types of unity.Obviously we cannot be spiritually united with those who do not share our faith. And this is why we ought not marry unbelievers. But, we can and should strive for civil peace with unbelievers.  Paul teaches us "If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men." (Rom 12:8) The author of the letter to the Hebrews similarly writes, "Pursue peace with all men" (Heb. 12:14). And civil peace is a kind of unity. We can and should pursue the common good in society, together with unbelievers. They too have a conscience, and the desire for the common good in civil society. They too want peace in our society, a clean environment, safe neighborhoods, order and beauty in society, just judges, etc. In other words, in the realm of the civil society, we have a great deal of common ground with unbelievers, as we pursue with them a civic unity, the unity of a civil society in its pursuit of the temporal welfare of that society. And again, that's because faith builds on and perfects nature, faith does not destroy nature. So the same civic goods we rightly desired as unbelievers, we still desire as Christians, along with those who are still unbelievers.
You seem to think that what is heavenly or supernatural, must be the opposite of what is human and of nature.
Of course a tyrant does not serve those whom he rules. But tyranny is an abuse of government, not the proper use of government. The true ruler of any society serves that society through his leadership. Hence, when Jesus says that the Apostles should not "lord it over" them, as the Gentiles do, Jesus is not contrasting leadership in the Kingdom with the way leadership in the state should be (as though civic leaders should not serve those whom they lead). Jesus is instead contrasting leadership in the Kingdom with the way leadership in the state often is, i.e. tyrannical.

@Srecko Sostar Your cynicism It’s not a consequence of Ecclesiastes 8:9. JW’s teach that “the existing authorities” can be said to “stand placed in their relative positions by God.” Relative to Jehovah’s supreme sovereign authority, theirs is by far a lesser authority. However, they are “God’s minister,” “God’s public servants,” in that they provide necessary services, maintain law and order, and punish evildoers. (Romans 13:1,4, 6) https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/library/r1/lp-e/all-publications/watchtower/the-watchtower-1996/may-1
People outside of the JW community are capable of imitating God righteousness and mercy: “The apostle Paul comments on the conscience, or at least a vestige of such, that still persists in fallen man, even though in many cases he has strayed from God and does not have his law. This explains why all nations have established many laws that are in harmony with righteousness and justice, and many individuals follow certain good principles. Paul says: “For whenever people of the nations that do not have law do by nature the things of the law, these people, although not having law, are a law to themselves. They are the very ones who demonstrate the matter of the law to be written in their hearts, while their conscience is bearing witness with them and, between their own thoughts, they are being accused or even excused.”—Rom. 2:14, 15. https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/publication/r1/lp-e/ad/3090
Here’s what you are missing about human nature : Unity with non-Christians is not something to be desired (other than to convert them), but we need to distinguish between different types of unity.Obviously we cannot be spiritually united with those who do not share our faith. And this is why we ought not marry unbelievers. But, we can and should strive for civil peace with unbelievers.  Paul teaches us "If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men." (Rom 12:8) The author of the letter to the Hebrews similarly writes, "Pursue peace with all men" (Heb. 12:14). And civil peace is a kind of unity. We can and should pursue the common good in society, together with unbelievers. They too have a conscience, and the desire for the common good in civil society. They too want peace in our society, a clean environment, safe neighborhoods, order and beauty in society, just judges, etc. In other words, in the realm of the civil society, we have a great deal of common ground with unbelievers, as we pursue with them a civic unity, the unity of a civil society in its pursuit of the temporal welfare of that society. And again, that's because faith builds on and perfects nature, faith does not destroy nature. So the same civic goods we rightly desired as unbelievers, we still desire as Christians, along with those who are still unbelievers.
You seem to think that what is heavenly or supernatural, must be the opposite of what is human and of nature.
Of course a tyrant does not serve those whom he rules. But tyranny is an abuse of government, not the proper use of government. The true ruler of any society serves that society through his leadership. Hence, when Jesus says that the Apostles should not "lord it over" them, as the Gentiles do, Jesus is not contrasting leadership in the Kingdom with the way leadership in the state should be (as though civic leaders should not serve those whom they lead). Jesus is instead contrasting leadership in the Kingdom with the way leadership in the state often is, i.e. tyrannical.

@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."
 

…
 

“Why do people here go to such extreme lengths to falsify their theories by overriding a locked post?”
I have often wondered about this.

It's true that many ex-JWs, apostates and interested persons mistakenly believe that Russell predicted 1914 as the end of the world, when 1914 was NOT supposed to be the end of the world. It was only the final date for the "rapture" of the remnant of Christ's Bride, and the year when Gentile kingdoms would cease ruling, and all religious and political institutions would plunge into their final chaos, which could last until the end of 1915, perhaps even a few months beyond.  At the same time, 1914 would also see a non-Gentile government in Jerusalem become established, which would begin to administer the earthly part of a one-world government for everyone on earth except Christians, who would all go to heaven (including the great crowd, also considered to be anointed.)
Many ex-JWs, apostates, and interested persons also mistakenly believe that F.Franz and/or the Watchtower Society predicted that 1975 would be the end of the "world." But in this case absolutely nothing was predicted that would definitely happen in that particular year. It was always about how close 1975 must be to the time when Armageddon was expected because of the unscriptural significance given to the end of 6,000 years of man's existence. F.Franz must have sincerely thought that there was some scriptural significance to "the end of 6,000 years. And of course, this fit perfectly with the idea already being promoted that the end must come before the lifespan ended of those who were teenagers in 1914. In other words they would already be about 75 years old in 1975. And you are right that this was seen to fit a host of other "signs of the times."

No one can tell for sure why we emphasized October so much. It was the habit of several chronologists after William Miller and therefore followers of Barbour and Russell also emphasized October. It has nothing to do with when the Temple fell even though the book "What does the Bible Really Teach" mistakenly indicates that the temple fell in October. Other publications such as Insight and various Watchtower articles say that it was NOT October. (More importantly, the Bible says it was not in October.) I think the "Bible Teach" book changed it to October just to simplify the reasons for explaining October 1914. It was probably for similar reasons that the date for Russell's announcement has changed from October 1st to October 4th to October 2nd. Don't know if you are aware, but the Watchtower has also taught that the actual date for the end of the Gentiles Times was October 4th:
*** w79 9/15 p. 24 par. 11 The “Cup” That All Nations Must Drink at God’s Hand ***
11 Now that the Gentile Times ended in 1914, we know that the day for Jehovah to hold an accounting with the Gentile nations for “their error” must be very near. Never has the world been the same since 1914. Secular historians cannot explain the reason for this. But the reason simply is that about October 4/5, 1914, or 2,520 years from the desolating of Judah and Jerusalem after the Babylonian conquest, the Gentile Times of uninterrupted world domination ended.
*** w75 11/1 p. 661 par. 15 The Time for Choosing God as Sovereign ***
This fact of universal interest has been true since the year 1914 C.E. In that year “the times of the Gentiles,” or, “the appointed times of the nations,” ended about October 4/5 , when counted from the desolation of Jerusalem and the land of Judah by the Babylonians in the year 607 B.C.E.
*** w73 3/15 p. 168 What Kind of Ruler Does Mankind Need? ***
When did Jehovah do so? In the year 1914 C.E. when the “appointed times of the [Gentile] nations” ended, about October 4/5.
*** w72 6/1 pp. 351-352 Questions From Readers ***
At the end of the Gentile Times, about Tishri 15 ( October 4/5 ), 1914 C.E., Revelation 11:15 was fulfilled: “The kingdom of the world did become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ.”
*** w72 12/15 p. 748 par. 5 The Time to Decide in the Name of Which God to Walk ***
By the end of the Gentile Times about October 4, 1914, eight nations and empires of Christendom, along with Japan, were fighting one another.
*** w71 12/1 pp. 717-718 par. 1 What Its “Right Condition” Means for Us Today ***
The Gentile Times had begun about the middle of the lunar month Tishri in 607 B.C.E., and so their 2,520 years of duration would end in 1914 about Tishri 15, which corresponds with October 4/5 . By then the British Empire and other empires of Christendom were embroiled in the war. The other member of the Anglo-American Dual World Power entered the war in the spring of 1917.
*** w70 1/15 p. 50 par. 5 Peace with God amid the “Great Tribulation” ***
Both the Bible’s time schedule and the physical facts of history prove that the Gentile Times, “the appointed times of the nations,” ended in 1914 C.E. about October 4/5 that year.

That expression "the physical facts . . .  prove" was an expression that Rutherford often used when there was no real evidence for something. In this case, it's probably F W Franz using it, but with the idea that WWI provided those "physical facts of history."  There are many more quotes like this, but notice that the next one actually admits that it is two months off, and offers no explanation for it.
*** w65 9/15 p. 569 A Pivotal Date in History ***
With this pivotal date established, it is easy to go back seventy years from the seventh month of the year 537 to the seventh month of 607 B.C.E. as the time of the desolation of Jerusalem and Judah. In 607 B.C.E., the month of Tishri began on September 22/23, the day for the observance of the festival of the new moon. It was in that month of 607 B.C.E. that the “seven times,” or, “the times of the Gentiles,” “the appointed times of the nations,” began. (Dan. 4:16, 23, 25, 32; Luke 21:24, AV; NW) This was two months after Jerusalem had been destroyed and its temple plundered, wrecked and burned down, after which its two principal priests were killed.—2 Ki. 25:5-21.
Evidently to make up for the lack of evidence for October 4th, one of the next paragraphs points out that "At Ezra 3:6 it is stated: 'From the first day of the seventh month on they started to offer up burnt sacrifices to Jehovah, when the foundation of Jehovah’s temple itself had not yet been laid.' This would be, according to the Gregorian Calendar, on September 28/29, of 537 B.C.E. So on the first day of the month they celebrated the new moon of the seventh month of that year."
Then, a footnote states the following (linked to September 28/29):
*** w65 9/15 p. 570 A Pivotal Date in History ***
Or, according to the Julian Calendar, October 4/5, 537 B.C.E. See Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.–A.D. 75 (edition of 1956), by Parker and Dubberstein, page 29.
Just because Tishri 1 fell on October 4/5 in 537 doesn't mean it fell on October 4/5 in any other "signficant" year. The above admits that it wasn't that date in 607, and in 1914 Tishri 1 lands on September 8th. Of course, this particular new moon celebration was just one of three different memorials to the time of the Temple destruction, but was not the date for the destruction itself according to the Bible and the Insight book.
The October tradition is actually based on a lot of assumptions, including the idea that Adam was created around October 1, 4026. The old October 1, 4028 B.C.E. date was more definite, but when it changed to 4026, the Insight book changes it only to "likely".
*** it-1 p. 45 Adam ***
That was in the year 4026 B.C.E. It was likely in the fall of the year, for mankind’s most ancient calendars began counting time in the autumn around October 1, or at the first new moon of the lunar civil year.
For some reason we began believing that Jehovah, in effect, created the civil, secular calendar when he created Adam. (When Jehovah implemented the sacred calendar the first month was changed from Tishri to Nisan in the spring.) The older reasoning was closer to the idea that "we just knew" because we understood Bible chronology. The newer reasoning, starting around 1950,  included the idea that Adam must have been created in the fall, and this would explain why many secular calendars (including the Hebrew) started in the fall.
*** w70 5/1 p. 273 par. 5 An Ingathering Affecting All Mankind ***
However, Bible chronology which indicates that Adam was created in the fall of the year 4026 B.C.E. would bring us down to the year 1975 C.E. as the date marking 6,000 years of human history with yet 1,000 years to come for Christ’s Kingdom rule. So whatever the date for the end of this system, it is clear that the time left is reduced, with only approximately six years left until the end of 6,000 years of human history. (1 Cor. 7:29) This corroborates the understanding of Jesus’ words that the generation alive in 1914 with the outbreak of World War I would not pass away until the end comes.
*** w68 5/1 p. 272 Making Wise Use of the Remaining Time ***
4026 [B.C.E]           Creation of Adam (in early autumn)  Gen. 2:7
*** w51 4/1 p. 221 An Interesting Chronological Chart ***
  4025 B.C.    Adam’s creation (in the fall)         Gen. 2:7
 
 
It might seem off the subject, but the October date of Adam's creation was once accepted as a very important factor in determining the possible date for Armageddon, and as we see in the quotes above, this was tied back to 1914. And as the quote below shows, for some reason we "needed to determine" time from the "autumn of 4026" -- elsewhere stated to be about October 1st.
*** w68 5/1 p. 271 pars. 4-5 Making Wise Use of the Remaining Time ***
Since it was also Jehovah’s purpose for man to multiply and fill the earth, it is logical that he would create Eve soon after Adam, perhaps just a few weeks or months later in the same year, 4026 B.C.E. After her creation, God’s rest day, the seventh period, immediately followed.
5 Therefore, God’s seventh day and the time man has been on earth apparently run parallel. To calculate where man is in the stream of time relative to God’s seventh day of 7,000 years, we need to determine how long a time has elapsed from the year of Adam and Eve’s creation in 4026 B.C.E. From the autumn of that year to the autumn of 1 B.C.E., there would be 4,025 years. From the autumn of 1 B.C.E. to the autumn of 1 C.E. is one year (there was no zero year). From the autumn of 1 C.E. to the autumn of 1967 is a total of 1,966 years. Adding 4,025 and 1 and 1,966, we get 5,992 years from the autumn of 4026 B.C.E. to the autumn of 1967. Thus, eight years remain to account for a full 6,000 years of the seventh day. Eight years from the autumn of 1967 would bring us to the autumn of 1975, fully 6,000 years into God’s seventh day, his rest day.
*** w67 7/15 pp. 446-447 The Removal of Mankind’s Chief Disturber ***
Adam was created in 4026 B.C.E., which means that six thousand years of human history end about the fall of 1975 C.E. We are in the great 7,000-year rest day of God, starting at the time he rested after the creation of Adam and Eve. There are, therefore, a thousand years left to run.
In those years we sometimes gave another piece of evidence as a reason for sticking with the October tradition. The following article which is specfically on the topic of the time of Adam's creation gives no other reason for October other than this one, and this one just appears almost out of the blue with no other context about October. (In 1955 we were still pointing to the 1976 date, not 1975, which happened when we changed the date of creation back again from 4025 to 4026.)
*** w55 2/1 p. 94 Questions From Readers ***
What are the reasons for changing the creation date of Adam first from 4028 B.C. to 4026 B.C. and now recently in the book “New Heavens and a New Earth” to 4025 B.C.? . . . Incidentally, Jesus, who became the second or “last Adam,” was born in the fall of the year around the first of October. . . . The very fact that, as part of Jehovah’s secret, no one today is able to find out how much time Adam and later Eve lived during the closing days of the sixth creative period, so no one can now determine when six thousand years of Jehovah’s present rest day come to an end. Obviously, whatever amount of Adam’s 930 years was lived before the beginning of that seventh-day rest of Jehovah, that unknown amount would have to be added to the 1976 date.
Apparently, the entire October tradition was just something we inherited from Nelson Barbour, and we kept it even though we found very little basis or evidence for it.
 
 
 
 

@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/