b4ucuhear

The small problem with this statement is easy to detect, and I'm sure you saw it, too.
It appears to claim that if "some" direction was given that was not in harmony with God's word, then "all of Jehovah's Witnesses" would notice. This has never, ever been true! Every time "some" change is made to a doctrine (and there have been literally hundreds of such changes) then the GB made this change because it was important to be in more complete harmony with God's word. In other words, if the change was made for the new teaching to be in harmony with God's word, then the previous teaching was not in complete harmony with God's word.
Yet, there has never been a case where more than a very few Jehovah's Witnesses spoke up, often none at all, as far as anyone knew. Back in the days when we were more attuned to anxiously await the latest "new light" from the yearly convention, the comments were always about how pleasantly surprised everyone was. No Witnesses are ever asked by the Governing Body what they think of a new doctrine and almost no Witnesses would dare say anything except that they agree completely, and that it was surely "food at the proper time." This is true, even though many of those items of "new truth" that we learned at all the assemblies in my formative years have been nearly scrapped, from "Your Will Be Done on Earth" [King of North/South, antimatter, fear of Sputnik] "Let Your Name Be Sanctified" [type-antitype Elijah as "Rutherford" and Elisha as "Knorr"] to "Babylon the Great Has Fallen" [Revelation "commentary" where almost half the paragraphs are already out of date].
I remember some of the adjustments, and wrong ideas over the years have been explained as "the right thing at the wrong time" or even once as "the wrong thing at the right time." [e.g., "superior authorities" of Romans 13]. Yet, it is always "food at the proper time" as far as perhaps 99% of us are concerned. 
But that's not the biggest problem with the claim. If it were true that even "some" wrong direction were easily detected by "all" then there is no need for a special "slave class" to present doctrines. If Brother Jackson is right, then it would be better to start from scratch and vote on each doctrine democratically.
This is not a complaint about the spiritual food we receive, and it's true that the specific menu of doctrines we enjoy is fulfilling and satisfies our spiritual needs. Over the years, however, much of it has proven to have been served at the wrong time, or it was the wrong thing. Some has even been toxic and resulted in spiritual death and loss of spiritual health for many. And we now have evidence that some of it has been kept toxic on purpose for many years because the servers didn't want to admit that it was bad food, even though the GB knew it was. (For example: The directions given on handing pedophilia cases for many years, corporal punishment of children, how a sister should respond to a physically abusive husband, chronological end-times speculation.)
I think most of these things have been corrected, or are in the process of further correction. But I don't blame the bad food on the "faithful and discreet slave" because I don't believe that this parable was a prophecy in the first place. For the most part the "spiritual food" served is wonderful. Where it is wrong it is usually corrected with something that is obviously better. But where someone digs in their heels and holds to false doctrine because of a tradition or inability to admit that it might have been wrong, this is not about an appointed "slave" proving themselves to be an "evil" slave, it's just the common human tendency of people who are looked up to as leaders to become like the Pharisees, and see themselves as more important or righteous. Teachers receive heavier judgment.
That's really the reason for the parable, anyway, as far as I can tell. It's so that a person who takes on the leadership position of Brother Jackson, for example, doesn't forget that he should be in subjection to you, Anna, and that he should be willing to give a literal drink of water to you or visit you when you are physically sick, or give you some actual physical food to eat if you are hungry.  And the parable was also meant to remind you, Anna, not to forget that you should be in subjection to Brother Jackson, and not be quick to judge him harshly even if you see that he has taken a false step. We should try to build each other up with patience and discretion and faithfulness, picking each other up as best we can, and trying to understand each others' mental, emotional, physical and spiritual needs so that we can be an encouragement to each other. As the "day" continues to draw near, we want to show love toward one another, so that all of us continue awaiting Jesus "parousia" without unnecessary distraction from the world and its desires. The point of the parable is that if the Master is away it's easy to lose faith, but by building our congregations up into a family of brothers and sisters who look out for each other with love, we will not be tempted to lose faith in the promise, which can result in disobendience to the Master, and being overly concerned about who is right and who isn't, or finding opportunities to "lord it over" our fellow servants.

How to Cope with a 
Thorn in the Flesh....
ARE you contending with some ongoing trial? 
If so, you are not alone. In these “critical times hard to deal with,” faithful Christians are coping with bitter opposition, family problems, sickness, financial anxieties, emotional distresses, the loss of loved ones in death, and other challenges.
Some may even cry out to God, “Why are you letting this happen to me?” 
If such a negative attitude were to take root in a person’s heart, it could erode his joy and confidence.
Jehovah God fights in our behalf. He has made sure that his servants are not ignorant regarding Satan’s tactics. (2 Corinthians 2:11)
Paul, having been sorely tried, was inspired to write: “There was given me a thorn in the flesh, an angel of Satan, to keep slapping me, that I might not be overly exalted.” (2 Corinthians 12:7) 
What was this thorn in Paul’s flesh? Well, a thorn lodged deep under the skin would certainly be painful. So the metaphor suggests something that caused Paul pain—whether physical, emotional, or both. 
It may be that Paul suffered from an eye affliction or some other physical infirmity. 
Or the thorn may have involved those individuals who challenged Paul’s credentials as an apostle and called into question his preaching and teaching work. (2 Corinthians 10:10-12; 11:5, 6, 13) 
Whatever it was, that thorn remained in place and could not be removed.
Today, Satan is just as pleased when we are similarly troubled by a thorn in the flesh.
God has given us many examples inhis holy Word, the Bible, showing that his faithful servants have successfully coped with thorns in their flesh.
•Paul 
•Mephibosheth
•Nehemiah
•Rebekah
•Hannah
•King David 
•Micaiah
•Job
The preceding examples by no means represent an exhaustive list. The Bible contains many more. 
All these faithful servants had to contend with their own figurative thorns. And what a wide variety of problems they faced! 
Yet, they had something incommon. None of them gave up in their service to Jehovah. 
Read this at this link and know you are not alone with your own personal thorn in the flesh! 
Despite all their distressing tests, they overcame Satan in the strength that Jehovah provided them. 
http://m.wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2002123?q=thorns+in+the+flesh&p=par#h=29

Apparently that is more in line with the redress scheme the government is now suggesting with the ongoing investigations. Let's see, $150 thousand times 1,000 child molestation cases attributed to our organization in Australia alone, would be what, $150 million? Still, $150 thousand per is still better than us having to pay millions per as in some cases elsewhere. I am interested to see how forthcoming with the truth and redress we will be in comparison with the Catholic Church. I appreciate the direction we are taking as an organization in other areas such as our unity, the preaching work, our spiritual instruction...But I feel that both transparency and honesty to the faithful has been lacking as to child molestation cases. Are the ones making these claims really all  just "apostates and liars?" Naturally, we shouldn't give any attention to apostates and liars. Problem is they are not all just apostates and liars after all. It concerns me now when I see how our own confidential records are being used as evidence against us and costing us millions of dollars of funds donated for the preaching work. Still, it would not be fair to judge the whole organization based on this sordid stuff. ( I don't even judge the Catholic Church based on their problem with it either - I have enough other reasons for my disagreement

I was was recently reading a book (fiction) wherein the the victim was a key player in bringing "a whole conspiracy to light. Even now now the whole truth isn't known." In response, the villain replies: "Buried. Because the truth would embarrass important people. It's always been that way."  I retained that quote as salient because of what I had seen and experienced within the organization. An expression in my country is: "Don't expect justice from Bethel." The reason behind that expression isn't that justice is never served, but rather it appears at times to be a matter of who you are or are connected to - who you friends are, what position you have. I would like to emphasize - as always - that not everyone is like that and it would be unfair to present it that way. But there does (at times) seem to be a different standard for those in authority compared to to rest. Those who use their authority to insulate themselves from scriptural accountability are manifesting a lack of faith in their accountability to God. ("Jehovah is not seeing...") It is a manifestly political view of matters that should be viewed from a spiritual, faith-based point of view.  So the idea that people should keep quiet to "protect Jehovah's reputation and his organization" is well, (fill in the blank). The Bible shows that when needed discipline was required for his people, Jehovah didn't hold back because he was afraid of what the neighbors think. That surrounding nations would conclude that their gods were greater after taking his people into captivity, didn't stop Jehovah from being true to himself and his standards. In my experience, keeping quiet (even under threat) only enables and emboldens those who have the most to hide. I've seen whole vicious, lying campaigns launched to discredit individuals who have exposed wrongdoing of the privileged. Still on the other hand, it's important to respect authority - especially within the organization, but not to the point of blind, worshipful obedience. The principle of "relative subjection" applies within the organization as well. Not everyone who has authority are what they may appear to be and even apostates have been able to get away with being such for years. (Should anyone become one simply because someone in authority leads them in that direction? Is that what "obedience" is?)
I was aware of your other references, and there is more than innuendo regarding Greenlees. I thought the sauna/pool incidents you mentioned you had previously attibuted to someone else you had described as "the oracle." Percy Chapman perhaps?  Maybe I remember your previous post from last year incorrectly. 

Does God Have a Name?
The Bible’s answer.....
Humans all have personal names. Wouldn’t it be reasonable for God to have a name? Having and using personal names is a vital part of human friendships. Should it be different when it comes to our friendship with God?
In the Bible, God says: “"I am Jehovah. That is my name."” (Isaiah 42:8) Although he also has many titles, such as “"God Almighty,"” “"Sovereign Lord,"” and “"Creator,"” he honors his worshippers by inviting them to address him by his personal name.—Genesis 17:1; Acts 4:24; 1 Peter 4:19.
Many translations of the Bible contain God’s personal name at Exodus 6:3. That passage says: “"I used to appear to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as God Almighty, but as respects my name Jehovah I did not make myself known to them."”
Jehovah is a rendering of God’s name in English that has been used for centuries. While many scholars prefer the spelling “Yahweh,” Jehovah is the form of the name that is most widely recognized. The first part of the Bible was written not in English but in Hebrew, a language that is read from right to left. In that language, the divine name appears as four consonants, יהוה. Those four Hebrew characters—transliterated YHWH—are known as the Tetragrammaton.
 

I use Ex 3:15 in field service when I speak to Muslims about Jehovah's name because they accept Moses, Abraham as prophets.  The scripture also says that Jahweh is his name from generation to generation...... and no need to explain in what way Jehovah had to make himself known.  ...   Most Muslims say that Abraham was in Mecca and started the religion there.  I also use scriptures to prove that Abraham made an altar to Jehovah and sacrificed to him BEFORE he went to Egypt and how he sacrificed to Jehovah when he RETURNED from Egypt.  There is no way he changed the name of his god halfway to Egypt and then changed the name of his God back again when he came back to Canaan. 
Mecca was not a city either.... Mecca came into existence as a city after 150 AD when the forefathers of Mohammad came from Yemen.  Mohammad tried to legitimize his religion to the Jews in Medina by claiming to come from the line of Abraham (but when they rejected him as a prophet he turned to killing them.)

It would be true to say that there are wicked men in any religious organization (including ours at times).  It's also true to say that we used to be very graphic, specific and expressive in our description of other religions.  In today's climate however, tact becomes important and we often need to choose our words carefully so as to maintain Jehovah's standards, and yet not alienate people who could potentially become our brothers and sisters, or unnecessarily bring governmental/legal restrictions that would curtail our preaching work.  We don't want to sound like "haters," while trying to reach those very same individuals (whether regarding religion or lifestyle).  That's not to say we approve of or tolerate wickedness, but we need to also guard against "painting with a wide brush" millions of people of whatever persuasion who like the Ninevites Noah was sent to -  "did not know their left hand from their right hand."  My next door neighbour happens to be Muslim as was one of my previous employers.  They were very nice to me.  I can't imagine how they would feel if I started referring to them all as wicked Muslims or how receptive they would be to our message with that description.  I'm sure the poster wasn't intending to make broad sweeping generalizations (even though we know Jehovah will destroy Babylon the Great), but my point is we need to be tactful in the way we relate to others who we may want to reach.  

Prompted by Shiwii and JWInsider I gave further consideration to this. I think the problem is that I was thinking about and using the words  Mediator and Intercessor/Advocate interchangeably. But they are different. Mediator is more a legal term. Moses mediated the Old Covenant; Jesus mediated the New Covenant.  The covenanters for the Law Covenant – fleshly Israel; for the New Covenant, spiritual Israel  (anointed Christians).
 
Non-Israelites benefited from the Law Covenant and those of the other sheep benefit from the New Covenant.  No one is left in the cold. (See Watchtower article in previous post and Bro Joyce’s comment.)
 
Mediator – definition - one that mediates; especially :  one that mediates between parties at variance
Mediator – One who interposes between parties in order to reconcile them.
(Job 9:33 - 33 If only there were someone to mediate between us, someone to bring us  together,)
Advocate – definition - a person who pleads for or in behalf of another; intercessor.
Intercessor – definition - A person who intervenes on behalf of another, especially by prayer:
JESUS OUR INTERCESSOR
However, whether we are of the heavenly calling or of the other sheep, we need daily an Intercessor. That person is Jesus Christ.
(Hebrews 7:25) 25 So he is able also to save completely those who are approaching God through him, because he is always alive to plead for them.
 
 (John 14:6) Jesus said to him: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
 
(Acts 4:12) 12 Furthermore, there is no salvation in anyone else, for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must get saved.”
 
*** w57 8/15 p. 502 par. 12 The Fight of Faith of the Peaceable ***
 
12 Jehovah’s justice is manifest in the provision he has made for life for men of all kinds as a free gift through faith. This is not received because of prayers that some can afford to pay for while others cannot. The same Mediator and Intercessor, Christ Jesus, who is also our Redeemer, can be called upon by all who desire to worship Jehovah with spirit and truth. While many persons by their point of view deny the power of God, Jehovah’s witnesses recognize the illimitable power of the Creator of the universe.
 
 
*** w02 9/15 pp. 5-6 How Can True Saints Help You? ***
However, God has appointed an Intercessor for our prayers. “I am the way and the truth and the life,” said Jesus Christ. “No one comes to the Father except through me.” Jesus also stated: “Whatever it is that you ask in my name, I will do this, in order that the Father may be glorified in connection with the Son. If you ask anything in my name, I will do it.” (John 14:6, 13, 14) We can be confident of Jehovah’s willingness to hear prayers offered in Jesus’ name. Concerning Jesus, the Bible says: “He is able also to save completely those who are approaching God through him, because he is always alive to plead [“be interceding,” footnote] for them.”—Hebrews 7:25.
…
The Bible teaches us that through Jesus we can have “freeness of speech and an approach with confidence” in prayer to God. (Ephesians 3:11, 12) Almighty God is not too distant or removed from mankind to hear our prayers. The psalmist David confidently prayed: “O Hearer of prayer, even to you people of all flesh will come.” (Psalm 65:2) Rather than transmitting power through the relics of deceased “saints,” Jehovah pours out his holy spirit upon those asking for it in faith. Jesus reasoned: “If you, although being wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more so will the Father in heaven give holy spirit to those asking him!”—Luke 11:13.
 
INTERCESSION WILL CEASE AFTER ATTAINMENT OF PERFECTION
 
*** w13 3/15 p. 23 par. 18 Jehovah—Our Place of Dwelling ***
18 In the new world just ahead, Jehovah will become “a real dwelling” for his people in yet another sense. Says Revelation 21:3: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them.” Initially, Jehovah will reside with his earthly subjects representatively by means of Christ Jesus. At the end of the thousand years, Jesus will hand the Kingdom over to his Father, having fully accomplished God’s purpose for the earth. (1 Cor. 15:28) Thereafter, perfected mankind will no longer need Jesus as an intercessor; Jehovah will be with them. What a wonderful prospect lies before us! In the meantime, then, let us strive to imitate the faithful generations of old by making Jehovah our “real dwelling.”
====
There may yet be further clarification on this, since all men were alienated from God when Adam sinned, not just the Israelites; (the Law given to Israel just being a tutor leading to Christ), hence they would all need to be reconciled to God as shown in Colossians 1:18-20; hence mediation for all mankind would have been needed. 
 
 
 
 

Yes I did mean to say Jonah, but didn't know how to change it afterwards. Not sure if it was the auto-correct that usually messes things up for me or absent-mindedness. Thanks for the clarification. 

It would be true to say that there are wicked men in any religious organization (including ours at times).  It's also true to say that we used to be very graphic, specific and expressive in our description of other religions.  In today's climate however, tact becomes important and we often need to choose our words carefully so as to maintain Jehovah's standards, and yet not alienate people who could potentially become our brothers and sisters, or unnecessarily bring governmental/legal restrictions that would curtail our preaching work.  We don't want to sound like "haters," while trying to reach those very same individuals (whether regarding religion or lifestyle).  That's not to say we approve of or tolerate wickedness, but we need to also guard against "painting with a wide brush" millions of people of whatever persuasion who like the Ninevites Noah was sent to -  "did not know their left hand from their right hand."  My next door neighbour happens to be Muslim as was one of my previous employers.  They were very nice to me.  I can't imagine how they would feel if I started referring to them all as wicked Muslims or how receptive they would be to our message with that description.  I'm sure the poster wasn't intending to make broad sweeping generalizations (even though we know Jehovah will destroy Babylon the Great), but my point is we need to be tactful in the way we relate to others who we may want to reach.  

I use a similar line of reasoning. Since Satan was in heaven and speaking directly with God (eg. re: Job) it's a given  from first person experience, that he would know the nature of God and Jesus. Therefore would it make any sense for Satan to try to tempt Jesus to be disloyal to God if he thought Jesus was God himself?  It would lead to the absurd conclusion that he was trying to get God should be disloyal to himself. What would the sovereign and creator of the universe have to gain by now being subservient to Satan? Not to mention the pain and suffering he would knowingly be inflicting on all his creation. The temptation scenario only makes sense if Satan (correctly) understood that Jesus was lower than Almighty God and was attempting to challenge Jehovahs right to rule by having Jesus perform an act of obedience to Satan. 

It would be true to say that there are wicked men in any religious organization (including ours at times).  It's also true to say that we used to be very graphic, specific and expressive in our description of other religions.  In today's climate however, tact becomes important and we often need to choose our words carefully so as to maintain Jehovah's standards, and yet not alienate people who could potentially become our brothers and sisters, or unnecessarily bring governmental/legal restrictions that would curtail our preaching work.  We don't want to sound like "haters," while trying to reach those very same individuals (whether regarding religion or lifestyle).  That's not to say we approve of or tolerate wickedness, but we need to also guard against "painting with a wide brush" millions of people of whatever persuasion who like the Ninevites Noah was sent to -  "did not know their left hand from their right hand."  My next door neighbour happens to be Muslim as was one of my previous employers.  They were very nice to me.  I can't imagine how they would feel if I started referring to them all as wicked Muslims or how receptive they would be to our message with that description.  I'm sure the poster wasn't intending to make broad sweeping generalizations (even though we know Jehovah will destroy Babylon the Great), but my point is we need to be tactful in the way we relate to others who we may want to reach.  

It would be true to say that there are wicked men in any religious organization (including ours at times).  It's also true to say that we used to be very graphic, specific and expressive in our description of other religions.  In today's climate however, tact becomes important and we often need to choose our words carefully so as to maintain Jehovah's standards, and yet not alienate people who could potentially become our brothers and sisters, or unnecessarily bring governmental/legal restrictions that would curtail our preaching work.  We don't want to sound like "haters," while trying to reach those very same individuals (whether regarding religion or lifestyle).  That's not to say we approve of or tolerate wickedness, but we need to also guard against "painting with a wide brush" millions of people of whatever persuasion who like the Ninevites Noah was sent to -  "did not know their left hand from their right hand."  My next door neighbour happens to be Muslim as was one of my previous employers.  They were very nice to me.  I can't imagine how they would feel if I started referring to them all as wicked Muslims or how receptive they would be to our message with that description.  I'm sure the poster wasn't intending to make broad sweeping generalizations (even though we know Jehovah will destroy Babylon the Great), but my point is we need to be tactful in the way we relate to others who we may want to reach.  

It would be true to say that there are wicked men in any religious organization (including ours at times).  It's also true to say that we used to be very graphic, specific and expressive in our description of other religions.  In today's climate however, tact becomes important and we often need to choose our words carefully so as to maintain Jehovah's standards, and yet not alienate people who could potentially become our brothers and sisters, or unnecessarily bring governmental/legal restrictions that would curtail our preaching work.  We don't want to sound like "haters," while trying to reach those very same individuals (whether regarding religion or lifestyle).  That's not to say we approve of or tolerate wickedness, but we need to also guard against "painting with a wide brush" millions of people of whatever persuasion who like the Ninevites Noah was sent to -  "did not know their left hand from their right hand."  My next door neighbour happens to be Muslim as was one of my previous employers.  They were very nice to me.  I can't imagine how they would feel if I started referring to them all as wicked Muslims or how receptive they would be to our message with that description.  I'm sure the poster wasn't intending to make broad sweeping generalizations (even though we know Jehovah will destroy Babylon the Great), but my point is we need to be tactful in the way we relate to others who we may want to reach.  

I use a similar line of reasoning. Since Satan was in heaven and speaking directly with God (eg. re: Job) it's a given  from first person experience, that he would know the nature of God and Jesus. Therefore would it make any sense for Satan to try to tempt Jesus to be disloyal to God if he thought Jesus was God himself?  It would lead to the absurd conclusion that he was trying to get God should be disloyal to himself. What would the sovereign and creator of the universe have to gain by now being subservient to Satan? Not to mention the pain and suffering he would knowingly be inflicting on all his creation. The temptation scenario only makes sense if Satan (correctly) understood that Jesus was lower than Almighty God and was attempting to challenge Jehovahs right to rule by having Jesus perform an act of obedience to Satan. 

I use a similar line of reasoning. Since Satan was in heaven and speaking directly with God (eg. re: Job) it's a given  from first person experience, that he would know the nature of God and Jesus. Therefore would it make any sense for Satan to try to tempt Jesus to be disloyal to God if he thought Jesus was God himself?  It would lead to the absurd conclusion that he was trying to get God should be disloyal to himself. What would the sovereign and creator of the universe have to gain by now being subservient to Satan? Not to mention the pain and suffering he would knowingly be inflicting on all his creation. The temptation scenario only makes sense if Satan (correctly) understood that Jesus was lower than Almighty God and was attempting to challenge Jehovahs right to rule by having Jesus perform an act of obedience to Satan. 

That's pretty easy to answer. You don't seem to put much reliance in the date 539 BCE, that the Watchtower promotes as the accurate, pivotal point. Yet, the older publications even called this an "absolute" date. 587 BCE does NOT supersede all these "variables." It does not supersede them because it is based only on the same lines of evidence for which we base 539 BCE. In fact, it's accuracy is merely a question of finding out what made 539 BCE an accurate, pivotal point. What made it so accurate as to once be called an "absolute date"?
*** w68 5/1 p. 268 par. 20 Understanding Time a Help to True Worshipers ***
20 For calculating Hebrew Scripture dates, the absolute date of October 5 to 6 in the year 539 B.C.E. is essential.
So, it turns out that we don't need any "divine intervention." If we take an interest in what made 539 BCE so accurate, that by itself, turns out to be the same information that makes 587 BCE not MORE accurate, but exactly the SAME in accuracy as the so-called absolute date of 539 BCE. It turns out to also be the same information that indicates the level of inaccuracy of 607 BCE. So if you trust that 539 BCE is accurate, and I understand that you might not, but if you did, then you would see that it's everything the Watchtower ever said about 539 BCE which is the source of evidence to correct 607 BCE.
From that perspective it is the Watchtower publications that are, in effect, declaring 587 BCE as accurate as 539 by pointing us to the types of evidence that make 539 BCE so accurate. The 539 evidence pointed to is the same evidence that makes 607 inaccurate.
No one's knowledge is greater than God's. But as you have also said "the fine work is to READ it for ourselves to SEE if it harmonizes with scripture and accept it as correct and holy."
You are right, and this is the ONLY reason to still be concerned about it. We should see if it harmonizes. It turns out that 607 BCE does NOT harmonize with scripture. It creates contradictions. It just so happens that the sources that make 539 BCE so accurate and absolute ALSO are the sources for the evidence for 587 BCE instead of 607 BCE. And coincidentally, 587 BCE just happens to remove the Bible contradiction that 607 BCE causes. This doesn't mean that 587 BCE is terribly important to me. Our core doctrines work perfectly well without 587 BCE and without 607 BCE.
This is also why in a local congregational setting, I never bring it up. My personal conversations have always been with friends and brothers from Bethel on this subject. I've had Bible studies where we discuss this particular doctrine and I merely say that this is the Watch Tower Society's current view on the subject. I admit that there have been various views on the subject of chronology and that some of the brothers take a very keen interest in these dates. But I add that we don't serve specifically for dates; the important thing is that we realize we are in the last days, that Jesus Christ is enthroned, and we still pray that this Kingdom will come and God's will be done on earth as it is in heaven. That should be enough to motivate us to show love and concern for all, but especially toward those related to us in the faith.
I don't tell anyone else that they should minimize these dates. It's just my own conscience. We've had several Bible studies reach the point of baptism, over a dozen through the years, and only once has a Bible study questioned why I don't emphasize the dates the same way that other brothers do. These views, to me, are not so divergent that they need to interfere with the ministry. To you, it sounds like they are. But that's your own conscience. I have to pay attention to my teaching, you have to pay attention to yours. The main thing is not to misrepresent scripture. We have a wide array of spiritual food, and a wide range of ministries. We are not all obligated to focus on the exact same ministry and teaching as the person next to us.
(1 Corinthians 12:4-11) 4 Now there are different gifts, but there is the same spirit; 5 and there are different ministries, and yet there is the same Lord; 6 and there are different activities, and yet it is the same God who performs them all in everyone. 7 But the manifestation of the spirit is given to each one for a beneficial purpose. 8 For to one is given speech of wisdom through the spirit, to another speech of knowledge according to the same spirit, 9 to another faith by the same spirit, . . . 11 But all these operations are performed by the very same spirit, distributing to each one respectively just as it wills.
If I'm not good at accepting 607 BCE, why not just consider it a weakness on my part.
(1 Corinthians 12:22) 22 On the contrary, the members of the body that seem to be weaker are necessary,
But there is never a reason to use such disagreements to produce divisions and sects in the congregation. But that doesn't mean that we should be silent if we see a problem, and neither can I conscientiously remain silent when a problem such as this one has been brought to my attention.
 

As has been correctly mentioned, there are a number of factors that come into play.  The notoriety of the infraction, the gravity of it, the level of repentance...
There is another point that could be made here that elders in particular may want to be careful over.  I have personally been on committees and know of more than several other cases where the person was wrongly removed or disfellowshipped.  When they moved to another congregation they maintained their innocence and that they were wrongly removed/disfellowshipped.  Since it was assumed that the originating letter was factual, it appeared the individuals were not humbly accepting discipline from Jehovah and remained disfellowshipped for years.  It became apparent however that the brother was doing everything he should and was faithful. To make a long story short.  The originating later was not truthful, it was malicious and we reinstated the brother immediately.  Sometimes removal or disfellowshipping has been used as a club to keep whistleblowers quite.  In one case the whole body that originated the removal/bad letter regarding the whistleblower was disfellowshipped for being involved in some very bad/immoral behaviour - as it was found out years later he was telling the truth - but it had been his word against theirs.  That is not to put into question the scriptural foundation of disfellowshipping unrepentant wrongdoers, but simply to realize that as humans, this is at times an imperfect process and at other times - although relatively rarely, used for nefarious purposes.  For those who do experience the type of things most wouldn't even want to hear about, remember who is the final judge and our dedication and loyalty is to Jehovah despite what well-meaning although imperfect (or at times wicked) men may do.  For those (most) others, remember that whom Jehovah loves, he disciplines.  Appreciate loving scriptural counsel as a gift (even if temporarily painful) that will put you on the path to everlasting life.  

Excellent!  Thank/you Ann. 

There was a JWTV broadcast last year (can't remember the month) that interviewed a lawyer who had been funded by the Org. to get his law degree. Anthony Morris (?) said Bethel wouldn't be sending Bethelites to College anymore because of the dangers.
Also last year (1/13/15), a letter was sent out to the Bodies of Elders calling for legal experts within the congregation who might be able to volunteer their services to HQ and to quietly make enquiries. The letter said:
"We trust that you will use discretion in approaching publishers regarding volunteering to
assist the organization in the above way. Please note that we are not encouraging individuals to
pursue higher education or university degrees to obtain skills related to legal matters. (w13 10/15
pp. 15-16 pars. 13-14) Thank you for your assistance."
3/6/12 BOE letter.
"Appointed men must be exemplary in heeding the warnings given by the faithful slave and
its Governing Body when it comes to education. (Matt. 24:45-47) Would an elder, a ministerial
servant, or a pioneer continue to qualify to serve as such if he, his wife, or his children pursue higher
education? Much depends on the circumstances and how he is viewed. When such a situation
arises, the body of elders should consider the following questions and scriptures:

• Does he show that he puts Kingdom interests first? (Matt. 6:33)
• Does he teach his family to put Kingdom interests first?
• Does he respect what has been published by the faithful slave on the dangers of higher
education? (3 John 9)
• Do his speech and conduct reveal that he is a spiritual person? (Ps. 1:2, 3; 1 Cor. 2:13-16)
• How is he viewed by the congregation?
• Why is he or his family pursuing higher education?
• Does the family have theocratic goals? (Phil. 3:8)
• Does the pursuit of higher education interfere with regular meeting attendance, meaningful
participation in field service, or other theocratic activities?

As the body of elders prayerfully and carefully considers the matter, it may be readily apparent
that the brother has a positive attitude about what the organization has published regarding
higher education and still retains the respect of others in the congregation. They may also observe
that he and his family are keeping Kingdom interests first if the education does not interfere with
meetings and the ministry. In such a case, the elders may determine that he could continue serving.—
1 Tim. 3:2, 4-6; Heb. 13:7.
On the other hand, if an elder or a ministerial servant is promoting higher education to others for the material advantages or the status it may bring, he is calling into question his qualifications to serve the congregation because of the effect on his and his fellow appointed brothers' freeness of speech. (1 Tim 3:13; Titus 1:9) The body of elders may therefore determine that the brother no longer qualifies to serve. In most cases, however, such a determination should be made in conjunction with the visit of the circuit overseer." 
 

"Cautious as serpents innocent as doves." That's why not everyone uses their real name in public discussions - there will always be someone who will be offended by something, and some of them can make trouble for you. Actually I was surprised you held out this long considering some of the things that have been discussed.         That being said, even when I disagreed with something you said, I always respected it as something from the heart. Your posts were also some of the most humorous I've read as well - especially the captioned photos. Your elders were likely doing what was expected of them within the organizational framework and were likely sincere with your best interest at heart (giving them the benefit of the doubt).
But if there is one thing I love, appreciate and respect above all else is that even when facing what for others would be faith-destroying realities they would rather look the other way to or pretend don't exist, you have maintained your faith in Jehovah and recognize where lies "the only game in town."  You have faced the "unvarnished truth" and are still standing.  You now have a tested quality of faith that you won't find among "head-in-the-sanders" - no matter how righteous they may appear in their own eyes. As I've mentioned before, hang in their, you are not alone. - "he that has endured to the end will be saved..."

After reading your post, I read mine over and can see where it may have been a bit confusing. To be clear, I was dealing with REINSTATING (not removing) individuals who had been wrongly disfellowshipped by men who had something to hide and we reinstated them immediately when we had the facts. There was no mention in my reply that "as an elder you (we) in 'many cases' wrongly removed/dis fellowships brothers."  I believe I expressed that this type of situation is the exception rather than the rule - "relatively rarely."  I say "relatively" rarely because while rare in comparison to the total number, it is far more than most people would be comfortable with and not all that unusual if you've had enough experience. 

As has been correctly mentioned, there are a number of factors that come into play.  The notoriety of the infraction, the gravity of it, the level of repentance...
There is another point that could be made here that elders in particular may want to be careful over.  I have personally been on committees and know of more than several other cases where the person was wrongly removed or disfellowshipped.  When they moved to another congregation they maintained their innocence and that they were wrongly removed/disfellowshipped.  Since it was assumed that the originating letter was factual, it appeared the individuals were not humbly accepting discipline from Jehovah and remained disfellowshipped for years.  It became apparent however that the brother was doing everything he should and was faithful. To make a long story short.  The originating later was not truthful, it was malicious and we reinstated the brother immediately.  Sometimes removal or disfellowshipping has been used as a club to keep whistleblowers quite.  In one case the whole body that originated the removal/bad letter regarding the whistleblower was disfellowshipped for being involved in some very bad/immoral behaviour - as it was found out years later he was telling the truth - but it had been his word against theirs.  That is not to put into question the scriptural foundation of disfellowshipping unrepentant wrongdoers, but simply to realize that as humans, this is at times an imperfect process and at other times - although relatively rarely, used for nefarious purposes.  For those who do experience the type of things most wouldn't even want to hear about, remember who is the final judge and our dedication and loyalty is to Jehovah despite what well-meaning although imperfect (or at times wicked) men may do.  For those (most) others, remember that whom Jehovah loves, he disciplines.  Appreciate loving scriptural counsel as a gift (even if temporarily painful) that will put you on the path to everlasting life.