JW Insider

Of course. I brought this topic up because of prayer for understanding and due diligence and meditation. It is not be cute, but it is our very serious Christian obligation to question, to prove to ourselves, to make sure, to test, and to search. Otherwise we are not following Jehovah's counsel in the Bible. In my case, I also always first give the benefit of the doubt to brothers who are older, wiser, and more experienced such as the men on the Governing Body. It is only when Jehovah's word seems to give a different answer that I would bring it up for further discussion like this. If you actually know of a scripture that tells us it is OK to just wait, I'm interested.

I guess you mean that as Witnesses, we bought into the wrong definition of generation, once, then twice, then three times, then four times, then five times, so that this sixth version might actually be right, but we don't want to fall for it like we did the last five times?

So, if Timothy or Eutychus were alive in 33CE, which is very possible, then he could have been part of "this generation." Paul could very well have been the same age as Jesus had been, and Timothy could very well have been 15 to 20 years younger than Paul, maybe more. It's only reasonable that Jesus meant persons who were alive at the time could have been addressed as "THIS generation." One might argue that if Timothy had been born in 40CE, that perhaps he had a brother or sister who had been born in 33CE, which COULD stretch him back into that generation that Jesus addressed. But then Jesus' words become less meaningful, because his point was that many people alive right then would live to see it. And if all those people died off and ONLY people who weren't alive yet lived to see it, then Jesus would have been seen as a false prophet.

33CE 70CE [ Great-Grand Parents ] [ Grand-Parents ] [ Parents ] [ "This Generation" ] [ Children ] [ Grand-Children ] [ Great-Grand-Children ] In 33 CE, it's easy to assume that Jesus addressed people from 15 to 55, with younger exceptions and older exceptions. But it seems likely that only persons in a 30-to-40-year range of ages could reasonably identify themselves with the generation he was addressing. More specifically we know that Jesus was primarily addressing his own apostles, assumed to be men of his own age group, as if his own "brothers" in the same generation. We know from the context of Exodus 1:6 that the term generation was often used in a sense similar to the chart above, where a person along with his brothers (and sisters) constituted a typical generation. (The LXX translates the Hebrew word in Exodus 1:6 the same as Matthew's Greek term for generation.) (Exodus 1:1-6) . . .Now these are the names of Israel’s [Jacob's] sons who came into Egypt with Jacob, each man who came with his household: 2 Reuʹben, Simʹe·on, Leʹvi, and Judah; 3 Isʹsa·char, Zebʹu·lun, and Benjamin; 4 Dan and Naphʹta·li; Gad and Ashʹer. 5 And all those who were born to Jacob were 70 people, but Joseph was already in Egypt. 6 Joseph eventually died, and also all his brothers and all that generation. In fact, we know that this is exactly how generation had just been used just a few verses earlier in the final verses of Genesis. 23 Joseph saw the third generation of Eʹphra·im’s sons, also the sons of Maʹchir, Ma·nasʹseh’s son. They were born upon Joseph’s knees. 24 At length Joseph said to his brothers: “I am dying, but God will without fail turn his attention to you, and he will certainly bring you up out of this land to the land about which he swore to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.” 25 So Joseph made the sons of Israel swear, saying: “God will without fail turn his attention to you. You must take my bones up out of here.” 26 And Joseph died at the age of 110, and they had him embalmed, and he was put in a coffin in Egypt. So, "that generation" in Exodus 1:6 refers to the generation of Joseph's brothers. It does not include his father Jacob's generation, nor his own sons Ephraim and Manasseh, nor their sons or grandsons (the third generation). I notice that Brother Splane (who refers to Exodus 1:6) would never refer to these verses that lead up to it. But even on its own, Exodus 1 already makes clear that this is one generation of brothers, and that you don't include someone's children and grandchildren and great grandchildren in that same generation. If a typical lifespan in Jesus' day was 60 years, then just like now, people would sometimes live long enough to see, not just their grandchildren, but also their great-grandchildren. Joseph lived to be nearly twice that age, and would therefore potentially see a third or even fourth generation. But the fourth generation is not the same as the first generation. It's also the way Matthew uses the term generation: (Matthew 1:17) 17 All the generations, then, from Abraham until David were 14 generations; from David until the deportation to Babylon, 14 generations; from the deportation to Babylon until the Christ, 14 generations. And it's the way we today use the term generation: *** w98 9/1 p. 28 I Learned to Rely on Jehovah *** My health is no longer very good, so the brothers drive me to the Kingdom Hall. I find pleasure in being there and enjoy giving comments at the Watchtower Study. I am especially happy to see representatives of three generations of my family serving Jehovah, including several of the grandchildren.

If Russell didn't want to be seen as the "faithful and wise servant" then why admit that he was the "faithful and wise servant" privately? Why didn't he say something to stop thousands of other people from saying it? Why would he publish letters in his Watch Tower magazine that addressed him as "That Servant"? Why would he allow himself to be addressed this way year after year in the Watch Tower's Bible Student Conventions and addressed this way in the Convention Souvenir Notes, without saying something? Only about 30 days after he died, the Watchtower claimed that THOUSANDS of people saw him as 'That Servant, Faithful and Wise.' You'd think that Russell would have said something if he didn't want all these thousands of people saying this during his lifetime. And do you think he thought that no one would see "That Servant" as Russell himself, when he wrote an article indicating that "modesty" was what had kept him from interpreting "that servant" as a singular individual, but that he would be saying the Holy Spirit was in error if he kept saying that it was the entire (plural) household of faith. In 1896 (page R1946), while not making the application directly yet, Russell presented the following article: "THAT SERVANT." —MARCH 22.—Luke 12:37-48; Matt. 24:42-51.— THIS lesson, from Matthew's account (Matt. 24:42-51), was treated in our issue of April 1, '95. We have no further comment to make except upon one point: "that [special] servant." In our examination of this text we seem to have treated the term "that servant" as though the Spirit had erred in saying "that servant" when it meant servants (plural), and we applied it to all true servants of God. Since then we have been met from various quarters with objections to so general an application, and the suggestion that it would be wrong to allow modesty or any other consideration, good or bad, to warp our judgment in the exposition of the inspired Word; to which proposition we agree. God evidently has some purpose in all that he has caused to be written for our admonition; and faithfulness as servants requires that we deliver to the household the Lord's word, as he gives it. Being unable to answer the objections and arguments raised, we candidly present them to the "fellow-servants" and to the "household" of faith as part of the Lord's message: the subject being forced upon us by its recurrence in the International S.S. Lessons, as well as by inquiries by letter. Let each "fellow servant" and each member of the "household of faith" use his consecrated judgment in accepting or rejecting this exposition, or any other exposition we may ever offer, according to his ability or inability to recognize in it the voice of our great Shepherd. The objection urged is that the Lord's words clearly mention and distinguish between his "household" (his faithful people in general), the "fellow servants" (plural), and "that servant" specially indicated as the Lord's agent in dispensing present truth as food to his "fellow servants" and the "household." It is admitted that in many Scriptures the consecrated are addressed individually when all of a class are meant,—as, for instance, "To him that overcometh I will grant to sit with me in my throne." This, according to the rules of language, means—"To each one who overcomes," etc. And in the texts under consideration, it is held that if neither the "household" nor "fellow servants" were mentioned, it might be questionable whether the expression "that servant" referred to one or to all faithful servants; but that when "that servant" and "his fellow servants" and the "household" are all mentioned in one connection, and in contrast, it would be a perversion of the rules of language and interpretation to mix and confound that which the holy spirit has so emphatically marked as distinct. It is further urged that to apply the term "his household" to nominal Christian professors in general could not be correct, because the "meat in due season" is intended only for the Lord's truth-hungry, "watching" people; and hence among these must be sought the "household" to be fed, the "servants" (plural) to do the feeding, and "that servant" at whose hands our present Lord will dispense the food to "his fellow servants" for "the household;" and who thus is constituted a general steward, overseer and dispenser of the Lord's "goods." It is urged, further, that the manifest fulfilment of this, during this "harvest" and time of the Lord's presence, should assist in the correct understanding of the promise; and that when we see things come to pass we should be able to recognize them whether we discerned their meaning in advance or not. Indeed, the demonstration seems to have forced the true interpretation, rather than that an interpretation led to the fulfilment;—which makes the matter really the stronger, now that it is seen. . . . We submit the argument without comment. For someone who submitted the argument "without comment" and "with no further comment," he sure went to a lot of trouble to show why he agreed with it, and why it was the undeniable and correct argument. Whose modesty do you think he was talking about when he said he would only present the argument, but couldn't himself comment on it? The answer, of course, appeared in that December 1, 1916 Watch Tower, that came out just about 30 days after Russell died. Thousands of the readers of Pastor Russell's writings believed that he filled the office of "that faithful and wise servant," . . . . His modesty and humility precluded him from openly claiming this title, but he admitted as much in private conversation. (R 5998) And of course, Rutherford immediately made more statements to that effect all through 1917. For example: "All of us realize . . . our dear Brother Russell . . . as 'that servant'." (January 15, 1917, R 6035) ". . . the Lord send through his chosen servant. THE WATCH TOWER unhesitatingly proclaims Brother Russell as 'that faithful and wise servant.' " (March 1, 1917, R 6049) "The two most prominent messengers, however, are the first and the last--St. Paul and Pastor Russell . . ." (Nov 1, 1917, R 6159) "Recognizing Brother Russell as the Lord's messenger to the Laodicean church and as the Lord's chosen servant . . . " (Dec 1, 1917, R 6181) At Russell's funeral, Rutherford even acknowledged that people would come from afar to "worship" Rusell. (His words, not mine.) "Charles Taze Russell, thou hast by the Lord, been crowned a king, and through the everlasting ages thy name shall be known amongst the people, and thy enemies shall come and worship at thy feet." Some of these items were already brought up here at the following link and probably elsewhere, too: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/forums/topic/47934-charles-taze-russell-was-he-recently-canonized/

The "God's Kingdom Rules" book. From the chart on page 12. Of course, the actual chart only shows the following portion: I added the 33 C.E. to 70 C.E. portion to begin a discussion on the topic.

If it's in the Watchtower, most of us believe it without question, or at least we will when we are clear about what it is saying. But this particular Watchtower I quoted shows that we do not believe in what is considered "the rapture" with all the features that we think Christendom attaches to it. But without those assumed features, the article is saying that we do believe in "a rapture." The basic idea of "rapture" as meaning caught away into a different state (such as earth to heaven) is now taught. In the past we avoided this teaching, and assumed it was possible that some anointed might actually live out their natural lives after Armageddon, and die while others are being resurrected. It was a rather odd idea, but who knows? After an idea that's a bit confusing to some is repeated in an assembly or public talk, or in a meeting, or another publication, QFR, etc., it will then be "known." Yes, this particular idea applies only to the truly anointed who have the hope of living in heaven. I assumed that by "regular" JW you meant those with an earthly hope who will not participate in such a rapture, and will not even necessarily expect to witness such a rapture. The physical body of the anointed JW raised suddenly to heavenly life, is typically expected to disappear somehow, as its life force is perhaps subsumed into a completely spiritual (invisible) body, but what the process might look like is purely conjecture, and it is rarely conjectured by anyone out loud, as far as I know.

I apologize if you think it makes me seem intelligent to some. That's not the intention. It's really more like you said here: Which reminds me that I never actually addressed the idea where you claim that Russell never claimed to be the equivalent of the FDS. Curiously, this can also be discovered through "what was written" as found in another footnote in the same book I mentioned previously. The "Divine Purpose" book (dp) makes the following statement on page 63: But then it unfortunately quotes from that same biography that the WTS supposedly never published. It's even mentioned in the index: On page 17, a footnote shows how that Biography was published. It was a special addition made to new editions of Studies in the Scriptures, updated in the 1926 edition. I bring it up because, if we read what was there named, "The Biography of Charles Taze Russell" we find the following: Thousands of the readers of Pastor Russell’s writings believe that he filled the office of “that faithful and wise servant,” and that his great work was giving to the Household of Faith meat in due season. His modesty and humility precluded him from openly claiming this title, but he admitted as much in private conversation. So, if the Watch Tower publications, published by the Governing Body after 1919, are to be believed here, then Russell admitted that he filled the office of "that faithful and wise servant."

Of course! Everything I write here is opinion. Even the part you evidently agreed with. 😊

I already pointed out that you made the mistake of pointing to a Watch Tower from 1880, when Russell hadn't begun pushing the change that made himself the FDS until 1896 and 1897. Oddly enough, the Watchtower publications made this same mistake: *** ka chap. 17 pp. 345-346 pars. 30-31 The “Slave” Who Lived to See the “Sign” *** This studious Christian took note of Jesus’ illustration of the “faithful and wise servant” (Matthew 24:45, Authorized Version) and published his understanding of it in the Watch Tower issue of November, 1881, page 5. In the fourth- and fifth-last paragraphs of the article “In the Vineyard,” he said: We believe that every member of this body of Christ is engaged in the blessed work, either directly or indirectly, of giving meat in due season to the household of faith. “Who then is that faithful and wise servant whom his Lord hath made ruler over his household,” to give them meat in due season? Is it not that “little flock” of consecrated servants who are faithfully carrying out their consecration vows—the body of Christ—and is not the whole body individually and collectively, giving the meat in due season to the household of faith—the great company of believers? Blessed is that servant (the whole body of Christ) whom his Lord when he has come (Gr. elthon) shall find so doing. “Verily, I say unto you, that he shall make him ruler over all his goods.” “He shall inherit all things.” 31 From this it is clearly seen that the editor and publisher of Zion’s Watch Tower disavowed any claim to being individually, in his person, that “faithful and wise servant.” He never did claim to be such.*" However, he did continue to edit the Watch Tower magazine down to the day of his death on October 31, 1916. Notice how they are using an 1881 Watch Tower and apparently disingenuously implying that "He never did claim to be such" and then immediately "sweeping" away the opposite history down to 1916. But if you look closely, you'll see that there is a little asterisk after the term "He never did claim to be such.*" If you have the original book, or check the WOL.jw.org, or the Watchtower Library CD you can see that this asterisk points to the following: *** ka chap. 17 The “Slave” Who Lived to See the “Sign” *** [Footnotes] See the book The Battle of Armageddon, published in 1897, page 613, under the heading “Dispensing of Food to the Household.—Matt. 24:45-51; Luke 12:42-46.” If you looked up the footnote, you would have seen that this was the first major place where it was claimed that Jesus would choose a specific, single channel referred to as "he" to dispense "meat in due season" and then compared with the plural "channels" or plural "fellow servants" to be used in bringing the food to the "household." This followed on the previous Watchtower that also showed it no longer referred to a class. In fact, if you had worked with the proofreaders and researchers at Bethel just prior to this book being rechecked for another printing in 1980 you might have known that this asterisk was a carryover from the book "Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose." Discussing the same subject, that book also quoted the 1881 Watch Tower: But then notice the next point, which is quite different than the impression given by the "Kingdom Approached" book. In this case, the earlier book discusses the problems of the cult that had developed around Russell, and discusses how Rutherford wanted to change this. So the footnote above, in this case, was used to show that the proper view was lost sight of, and attention was now "on an individual man.o" And where did that little footnote point? It was only beginning in 1897 that Russell began allowing himself to be addressed as "that servant, faithful and wise" (FDS) and referred to as the individual giving out meat in due season (food at the proper time). The issue of so many persons 'worshiping' Russell was admitted freely in the 1959 book, "Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose." (Their word, "worship," not mine.) But the "Kingdom Approached" book didn't get into that. The much more recent "Proclaimer's" book refers to the problem, too: *** jv chap. 6 p. 65 A Time of Testing (1914-1918) *** Others, on account of their deep respect for Brother Russell, seemed more concerned with trying to copy his qualities and develop a sort of cult around him.

This is not the whole truth of the matter. Exactly as I said previously, Russell taught that the household of faith was being fed by the anointed from about 1879 until about 1897. I believe the first Watchtower article claiming that the FDS was a single person or individual (and not a class of individuals) was actually published in 1896, but the primary source is the book "Battle of Armageddon" (Studies in the Scriptures Series, published 1897). He was reticent to go out and publicly proclaim that "this single individual" was he himself, even though it was already obvious to most, but he still allowed his wife to openly publicize the idea that Russell as publisher of the Watchtower, was referring to himself. As I said: Your supposed evidence was a quote from an 1880 Watchtower which was obviously from within the period that included 1879 to 1897. This was during those two decades when Russell was not directly pushing the idea that HE himself held the office of the FDS. As someone recently said: you need to get your decades straight!

It's probably best if you would stop claiming that people who tell the truth are telling lies. You have consistently shown yourself to be quite uninformed and deficient in so many areas of Bible Student history. In spite of your claims and bluster you have never yet shown me any evidence of something I said that was wrong about Bible Student history, even though I'm sure to have made several mistakes as I often write about things from memory. But I've seen you make mistakes and false claims in the MAJORITY of your statements about Watchtower history or Bible Student history. You have made so many embarrassing errors when it comes to claims about Watchtower history that I have merely ignored dozens of them. (You even seem to have forgotten more recent Watchtower history with regard to a woman's culpability if she didn't scream when raped. If I were to draw a conclusion based on your past levels of "honesty" I'd say you more likely are purposely trying to misunderstand this as a statement by NB that the WTS told women they could not scream.)

I wish I could agree. Fortunately, I believe there is a recent move towards a proper, Biblical standard of leadership. Unfortunately, we have a lot of documented evidence that the Watchtower GB have indeed deviated from Biblical standards of leadership. For example, recall that in 2013, Charles Taze Russell (CTR) was finally removed from inclusion in the membership of the faithful and discreet slave, but that Joseph F Rutherford (JFR) now holds the "pre-eminent" position as the first well-known person that Jesus supposedly appointed to be a member of the "faithful and discreet slave" in 1919. Of course, JFR never noticed that Jesus had just appointed him to this position, because he went on claiming in 1919 and nearly until 1930 that he was NOT even a part of that "faithful and discreet slave" for several years after 1919. JFR claimed that only CTR held that office, and continued to publish the claim that CTR, in fact, was still "spirit-directing" the WTS from beyond the veil. JFR claimed that CTR was not only the "pre-eminent" member of the FDS, but that he was the ONLY person who had held that office. In the WT, CTR was still considered a pre-eminent member of the FDS in these last days until the WTS removed him from ever having been a member of the FDS, as of that update in 2013. But here is where the leadership problem comes in. Rutherford was known for blatant self-promotion, promoting a title and name for himself, advertising, advertising, advertising, and marketing stunts like putting the deed of a property in the name of Abraham, David, and other faithful "men of old." This might be just fine on its own, but he published the "Bulletin" and the "Messenger" which more than once printed the idea that disobeying Rutherford was tantamount to disobeying the Lord himself. The idea that the organization was "spirit-directed" took on exactly the same meaning as "inspired." As an aside, someone recently pointed out that the term has now been removed from the baptism questions, and I think this is one of the steps in the right direction, in terms of leadership that is less presumptuous. (In fact, it is very difficult to translate the term spirit-directed into many languages in a way that would distinguish it from the term "inspired." Also, legally, it is easier to push legal liability back on local elders in cases of CSA legal errors, if the WTS stops using the term "spirit-directed" organization.) But this idea of being "spirit-directed" was part of the deep-rooted belief that the "governing body" had about themselves. Twice, in court, (two different cases) members of the so-called "governing body" testified that Jehovah was the editor of the Watchtower. In fact, this was a reason (around 1931) for taking off all names of the editorial committee in Watchotwer publications except for Rutherford himself. We have had statements, even fairly recently, that continued to echo that same idea that Russell made when he said that reading his books would bring someone into the light in a short period of time, while reading the Bible alone would allow the same person to go off into darkness in a short period of time. But back to the self-promotion of a leadership standard that was far from the standard Jesus set, as seen in Matthew and elsewhere. Here is an example from 1943 that I shared previously: Watchtower, July 1, 1943 page 205: Now, the apostle says, Jehovah speaks to us through his Son. (Heb. 1: 1, 2) The Son has returned as King; he has come to his temple. He has appointed his "faithful and wise servant", who is his visible mouthpiece, and says to those who are privileged to represent him upon the earth, "This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations" ... These expressions of God's will by his King and through his established agency constitute his law or rule of action for the "faithful and wise servant" and for their goodwill companions today... The Lord breaks down our organization instructions further . . . . He says, 'Let us assign the field, the world, to special pioneers, regular pioneers and companies of Jehovah's witnesses. . . . He [the Lord] says the requirements for special pioneers shall be 175 hours and 50 back-calls per month, which should develop into a reasonable number of studies; and for regular pioneers 150 hours and as many back-calls and studies as can be properly developed during that time. And for company publishers he says, 'Let us make a quota of 60 hours and 12 back-calls and at least one study a week for each publisher.' These directions come to us from the Lord through his established agency directing what is required of us; . . . This expression of the Lord's will should be the end of all controversy. It is for your good that these requirements are made; for thereby you are enabled to prove your integrity and magnify the Lord's name. These directions from the Lord come to us as individuals and as collective units called "companies". ... They are to carry on all the forms of magazine work in that assignment. ... ... The Lord through his "faithful and wise servant" now states to us, "Let us cover our territory four times in six months." That becomes our organization instructions and has the same binding force on us that his statement to the Logos had when he said, ''Let us make man in our image." It is our duty to accept this additional instruction and obey it. Since Jehovah was supposedly the Editor of this article, it made sense to the governing body that these words were to have the same binding force on us as any other command from Jehovah. The Watchtower's instructions to Witnesses were considered the equivalent of Jehovah's command to the Logos found in the words of the Bible in Genesis. This should make us think again when we see statements like: "[A mature christian] does not advocate or insist on personal opinions or harbor private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding. Rather, he has complete confidence in the truth as it is revealed by Jehovah God through his Son, Jesus Christ, and "the faithful and discreet slave." (w01 8/1 p.14)   Those are not the words and attitude of persons who are humble, meek, faithful, wise and discreet.

(Matthew 24:34) . . .Truly I say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things happen. (Matthew 24:1-3) . . .Now as Jesus was departing from the temple, his disciples approached to show him the buildings of the temple. 2 In response he said to them: “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, by no means will a stone be left here upon a stone and not be thrown down.” 3 While he was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples approached him privately, saying: “Tell us, when will these things be. . . (Mark 13:1-4) . . .As he was going out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him: “Teacher, see! what wonderful stones and buildings!” 2 However, Jesus said to him: “Do you see these great buildings? By no means will a stone be left here upon a stone and not be thrown down.” 3 As he was sitting on the Mount of Olives with the temple in view, Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked him privately: 4 “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are to come to a conclusion?” (Luke 21:5-7) 5 Later, when some were speaking about the temple, how it was adorned with fine stones and dedicated things, 6 he said: “As for these things that you now see, the days will come when not a stone will be left upon a stone and not be thrown down.” 7 Then they questioned him, saying: “Teacher, when will these things actually be, and what will be the sign when these things are to occur?”

Sorry to disappoint. I usually give up on explaining things concisely at about the time I notice that I am already up to 20 paragraphs. But I meant that there have already been several pages of explanations in this thread and others, going right back to your original question. The very fact that the GB produces contradictory statements about themselves, which are not based on scripture, that was what made me say that the GB cannot be the same as the FDS. A GB that declares itself to be the FDS is already "publishing a flawed argument" "skating close to the edge" and "in no man's land" if I may borrow some verbiage from Outta Here. This goes back to a WT quote that Noble Berean provided, back on page 5 or so: "[A mature christian] does not advocate or insist on personal opinions or harbor private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding. Rather, he has complete confidence in the truth as it is revealed by Jehovah God through his Son, Jesus Christ, and "the faithful and discreet slave." (w01 8/1 p.14)   And a similar one here: *** w04 10/1 p. 7 “The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth”—How? *** One who is meek humbly accepts God’s standards in all aspects of his personal life; he does not insist on going by his own views or by other people’s opinions. He is also teachable, willing to be taught by Jehovah. The psalmist David wrote: “[Jehovah] will cause the meek ones to walk in his judicial decision, and he will teach the meek ones his way.”—Psalm 25:9; Proverbs 3:5, 6. We now see that it has been admitted that the GB have sometimes been advocating or insisting on their own views. Several of these views have been "false" as they have now admitted. It is clear that in some cases these have merely been based on other people's opinions, often their own predecessors on the GB. They have sometimes forgotten to be meek. Although they admit that some of the teachings and direction has been incorrect, they have sometimes forgotten the meekness and humility that should come from these experiences and continue to insist that others should have "complete confidence in the truth as it is revealed by . . . the faithful and discreet slave." Well that is the same as saying that we should have complete confidence in views and opinions that are prone to error, potentially false and uninspired, just because they have been mixed in with truths revealed from Jehovah through his Son, Jesus Christ. But with true humility, faithfulness and discretion it doesn't have to be this way. The GB, as overseers (elders), are reaching out for an oversight position over the extended worldwide congregations, and are therefore reaching out for a fine work. It is a very valuable and useful office of oversight. And through it they can preside over various questions and concerns, while considering input and issues from all over the world. But in any position of privilege or heavy responsibility there is a danger that Jesus clearly warned about. If we take Jesus' words seriously, we will be on the watch for the very examples that Jesus warned about. We know that the GB consider themselves to be in a position much like that of the original 12 apostles, or that of the "NT" Bible writers, and the Bible tells us what such positions can lead to: the desire for control, power, prominence, leadership, and even obedience. (Matthew 19:27-20:27) . . .Then Peter said in reply: “Look! We have left all things and followed you; what, then, will there be for us?” . . .[Jesus answered] you who have followed me will sit on 12 thrones, judging the 12 tribes of Israel. 29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands for the sake of my name will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit everlasting life. 30 “But many who are first will be last and the last first. . . .‘These last men put in one hour’s work; still you made them equal to us who bore the burden of the day and the burning heat!’ 13 But he said in reply to one of them, ‘Fellow, I do you no wrong. You agreed with me for a de·narʹi·us, did you not? 14 Take what is yours and go. I want to give to this last one the same as to you. . . . Or is your eye envious because I am good?’ 16 In this way, the last ones will be first, and the first ones last.” . . . 20 Then the mother of the sons of Zebʹe·dee approached him with her sons, . . . . “Give the word that these two sons of mine may sit down, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your Kingdom.” . . . 23 He said to them: “You will indeed drink my cup, but to sit down at my right hand and at my left is not mine to give, but it belongs to those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.” 24 When the ten others heard about it, they became indignant at the two brothers. 25 But Jesus called them to him and said: “You know that the rulers of the nations lord it over them and the great men wield authority over them. 26 This must not be the way among you; but whoever wants to become great among you must be your minister, 27 and whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave. I think there is a tendency for all of us to want to read into the first century congregation a kind of human authority structure among the apostles and older men of Jerusalem that just wasn't there. The apostles remaining in Jerusalem prior to the writing of the "NT" has allready served its purpose, and is not intended as an ongoing model of apostolic succession in the last days. Because we are only human, we think that the hierarchical system under Moses, and therefore the "seat of Moses" was intended to continue into Christian times. We are therefore anxious to see any criticizers as "Korah vs Moses." We don't have the faith that true Christianity can thrive without a group of men wielding authority. (Just as Israel didn't think they could compete with nations around them without a king.) We tend not to see this wielding of authority as a problem, because MOST of what the GB relays and publishes is perfectly acceptable. But this lax attitude toward what Jesus warned us about can result in a very dangerous situation for Christians. We do not mature as we should to stand on our own, because it's so much easier to just accept humans as leaders, and accept them as vicars of Christ. Paul pointed out the folly of this very attitude toward other humans who think they should be more than what even the "apostles" were, and who want to be more than just faithful and discreet "stewards." They will tend to go beyond the things written; to want honor, and to judge, and to govern. (1 Corinthians 4:2-10) 2 In this regard, what is expected of stewards is that they be found faithful. 3 Now to me it is of very little importance to be examined by you or by a human tribunal. In fact, I do not even examine myself. 4 For I am not conscious of anything against myself. But by this I am not proved righteous; the one who examines me is Jehovah. 5 Therefore, do not judge anything before the due time, until the Lord comes. He will bring the secret things of darkness to light and make known the intentions of the hearts, and then each one will receive his praise from God. 6 Now, brothers, these things I have applied to myself and A·polʹlos for your good, that through us you may learn the rule: “Do not go beyond the things that are written,” so that you may not be puffed up with pride, favoring one against the other. 7 For who makes you different from another? Indeed, what do you have that you did not receive? If, in fact, you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not receive it? 8 Are you already satisfied? Are you already rich? Have you begun ruling as kings without us? I really wish that you had begun ruling as kings, so that we also might rule with you as kings. 9 For it seems to me that God has put us the apostles last on exhibition as men condemned to death, because we have become a theatrical spectacle to the world, and to angels and to men. 10 We are fools because of Christ, but you are discreet in Christ; we are weak, but you are strong; you are held in honor, but we in dishonor. These men wanted to be "guardians" when Paul indicated that the entire worldwide congregation were their/our guardians: (1 Corinthians 4:15) . . .For though you may have 10,000 guardians in Christ. . . (Romans 14:12) . . .So, then, each of us will render an account for himself to God. (Romans 14:4) 4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for Jehovah can make him stand. (Galatians 6:4, 5) 4 But let each one examine his own actions, and then he will have cause for rejoicing in regard to himself alone, and not in comparison with the other person. 5 For each one will carry his own load.

No one is claiming those definitions are the best, just that the common definition of rapture as a change of state need not carry the false baggage of believing that physical bodies go to heaven. I have no problem with the word transported in this case either, as long as we know we are talking about the "life force" of the Son of God being transferred into the womb of Mary. Note: *** w62 3/1 p. 160 Questions From Readers *** The Greek word at Hebrews 11:5 rendered “transferred” in the New World Translation has the meaning of “transfer,” “transport,” or “change the place of.” It seems that the experience of the apostle Paul throws light on this matter, since he was transferred or caught up to the third heaven; whether in the body or out of the body, he was not able to say. In this state he caught a vision of the future spiritual paradise of the Christian congregation. (2 Cor. 12:1-4) Apparently it was in a similar state of spiritual rapture or ecstasy, while having a vision of the earthly paradise (Enoch not knowing anything about a spiritual one), that God took Enoch away or put him to sleep. *** w70 6/1 p. 327 par. 9 Do You Have “Faith to the Preserving Alive of the Soul”? *** Enoch was thus “transferred so as not to see death,” but first “he had the witness that he had pleased God well.” (Heb. 11:5) How so? The Greek word rendered “transferred” at Hebrews 11:5 means “transfer,” “transport” or “change the place of” and is suggestive of what happened to Paul. He was transferred or caught up to the “third heaven” miraculously, receiving a vision of the future spiritual paradise of the Christian congregation. (2 Cor. 12:1-4) Enoch, who knew nothing about a spiritual paradise, was apparently in a comparable condition of rapture . . . Perhaps it's a North American thing, but I don't see a problem with Jehovah transporting the life of Jesus from heaven to earth, and then knowing that he was "caught up" to heaven when his life was transferred (transported) from earth to heaven. *** ws17 February p. 7 par. 15 Jehovah’s Purpose Will Be Fulfilled! *** Jehovah transferred the life of Jesus, his first creation, from heaven to earth. (John 1:14) (2 Corinthians 12:2-4) . . .I know a man in union with Christ who, 14 years ago—whether in the body or out of the body, I do not know; God knows—was caught away to the third heaven. 3 Yes, I know such a man—whether in the body or apart from the body, I do not know; God knows— 4 who was caught away into paradise and heard words that cannot be spoken and that are not lawful for a man to say. (1 Thessalonians 4:17) 17 Afterward we the living who are surviving will, together with them, be caught away in clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and thus we will always be with the Lord. (John 14:3) 3 Also, if I go my way and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will receive you home to myself, so that where I am you also may be. (Acts 1:9) 9 After he had said these things, while they were looking on, he was lifted up and a cloud caught him up from their sight. *** w56 4/15 p. 239 Was Jesus a God-Man? *** If Jesus had been a mere incarnation, then it would not have been necessary for God to transfer his life to an embryo in the virgin’s womb and to have Jesus born as a helpless infant, subject to human parents;

Hmmmm. It's usually easy to identify anyone's remarks here as their opinion, and I have expressed my opinion. If I had said, or "published" as you say, that the city of Sodom must not be destroyed forever in the final judgment and they are therefore coming back in the resurrection, or that only the babies and children killed in the Flood of Noah's day are coming back in the resurrection, then you might immediately recognize that this was an opinion, even if I used Scriptures to back up my opinion. Especially if you recognized that I was using a different set of scriptures than our publications use in order to back up my opinion. No matter whether I think that something you or Tom or Witness, or John, or Anna or Jack or others might be right or wrong, if I can recognize that it is different from the most recent published presentation in the publications or from the platform, then I know that you or they have formed an opinion, no matter how sure anyone is about that opinion. But I would expect you (or them) to provide (publish) a reasonable and hopefully scriptural argument for that opinion. And I might expect that the argument could be very good or could very well be flawed. Just as my own opinion might be flawed. An opinion can very well be in opposition to the majority opinion, or accepted doctrine. My mention of the fact that perhaps thousands might think this way is an acknowledgment of the fact that I have heard these opinions from others too, and I extrapolate because I don't think I'm so unique or special in any way, nor is this congregation. I think sensitivities to differences on this particular opinion have been weighted by the fact that it is fast becoming the most repeated unique doctrine in the Watchtower study articles. Since 2014, the expressions "faithful slave" and "faithful and discreet slave" have regularly edged out "1914" and "generation" and "Armageddon." In fact, from 2016 to 2018, the date 1919 was used far more in the Watchtower than 1914. I think you can guess why.

Similar, perhaps. But note that the common defintion, doesn't necessarily connote the incorrect baggage. Shiwiii clarified: And Google provides the following as the top definitions in this context. rap·ture /ˈrapCHər/ noun: North American (according to some millenarian teaching) the transporting of believers to heaven at the Second Coming of Christ. verb: North American (according to some millenarian teaching) transport (a believer) from earth to heaven at the Second Coming of Christ.

Quite the opposite. I stated that I think the GB have a desire to do God's work and to obey God, and that they are worthy of double honor (especially as they work hard in speaking and teaching). They have reached out for the office of overseer, and as the scripture I quoted states, they are therefore desirous of a fine work. This is their goal, as I stated: Somehow you decided that this means they are not worthy? My concern was that a few of these men, evidently, have also succumbed to some ideas, based on doctrinal traditions that have been handed down to us since at least Rutherford's time. Those traditions include trying to maneuver 1914 into Jesus' parables even when it becomes clear that it won't work. They have therefore cornered themselves into making a declaration of their own righteousness and faithfulness in a presumptuous manner rather than faithfully and discreetly waiting upon Jesus to make that judgment. This is just a false step that our brothers have taken, presumably before they were aware of it. Many Witnesses have noticed this. I would assume that thousands have noticed this and are therefore concerned. In fact, I now think that the GB themselves are aware of this doctrinal conundrum and have begun trying to extricate themselves. The first step is admitting that it is presumptuous to declare a specific group or class as Jehovah's "sole channel." Then admitting that many of the doctrines through the years have been false, and that even current doctrines and procedures are subject to error. And if we are aware of a false step, our responsibility is to say something. *** od p. 193 Part 2 Jehovah’s Righteous Requirements *** 25. In addition to confessing his own sins, each person has what responsibility regarding serious wrongdoing by others that could threaten the spiritual or moral cleanness of the congregation? “If someone sins because he has heard a public call to testify and he is a witness or has seen or learned about it and he does not report it, then he will answer for his error.”—Lev. 5:1.

With the above as the basis, we can now begin to see an issue with the explanation. After arriving in 1914, Jesus was supposed to have appointed the GB as the FDS in 1919. But the original parable is about Jesus appointing the FDS and then departing for an unknown amount of time. If Jesus arrived in 1914, and appointed the FDS in 1919, then when did he depart? Where did he depart to? For a time, after 1916, Rutherford got very quiet about the 40 years of harvest running from 1874 to 1914, and, in fact, he changed those 40 years, and made them run from 1878 to 1918. At the time, recall, 1914 was still considered an embarrassing, failed expectation. It had not yet been tied to any invisible presence [still 1874] or the start of Christ's Kingdom [still 1878], or the casting down of Satan. And the "first resurrection" was not yet tied to 1918; it was still 1881. So Rutherford would soon begin to speak of Jesus having "arrived" in 1918 for the inspection and cleansing of the Temple. In spite of a great European War in 1914, it was pretty clear to Rutherford that nothing Biblically significant had happened in 1914. That was supposed to be the final VISIBLE manifestation of an invisible presence that started 40 years earlier. After inspection, 1919 would be the new fresh start. In the early 1920's, Rutherford reaffirmed the chronology, including 1874, 1878, 1881, and 1914 in preparation for the sureness of his 1925 prediction. But he also said that there was more proof for 1925 than there had been for 1914. So now we move onto the details. Luke says there are four classes of slave: Faithful and Discreet who will be appointed over all belongings on the Master's arrival Unfaithful Slave who will be beaten with greatest severity Understanding Slave who didn't get ready and is beaten with many strokes Misunderstanding Slave who gets beaten with few strokes. This of course matches the parable of the talents where a master makes appointments to various servants, and a NWT cross-reference points us to Matthew 25: (Matthew 25:14-30) . . .“For it is just like a man about to travel abroad who summoned his slaves and entrusted his belongings to them. 15 He gave five talents to one, two to another, and one to still another, to each according to his own ability, and he went abroad. . . . 19 “After a long time, the master of those slaves came and settled accounts with them. 20 So the one who had received the five talents came forward and brought five additional talents, . . . 21 His master said to him: ‘Well done, good and faithful slave! You were faithful over a few things. I will appoint you over many things. Enter into the joy of your master.’ 22 Next the one who had received the two talents . . . 23 His master said to him: ‘Well done, good and faithful slave! You were faithful over a few things. I will appoint you over many things. Enter into the joy of your master.’ 24 “Finally the slave who had received the one talent . . . In reply his master said to him: ‘Wicked and sluggish slave, . . . 29 For to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance. But the one who does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. 30 And throw the good-for-nothing slave out into the darkness outside.. . . It ends with an idea similar to the way Luke ends the parable of the faithful and wise steward: (Luke 12:48) . . .Indeed, everyone to whom much was given, much will be demanded of him, and the one who was put in charge of much will have more than usual demanded of him. In fact, we have a situation in several parables (marriage feast, where the idea is always that the Master makes an appointment over some of his belongings to his servants, and then the master departs to travel abroad, and then the master returns (at a time they didn't expect) and the Master judges those slaves. Another short one is in Mark (the doorkeeper), where Jesus gives authority to his slaves, to each one his work. (Mark 13:34) It is like a man traveling abroad who left his house and gave the authority to his slaves, to each one his work, and commanded the doorkeeper to keep on the watch. 35 Keep on the watch, therefore, for you do not know when the master of the house is coming, whether late in the day or at midnight or before dawn or early in the morning, 36 in order that when he comes suddenly, he does not find you sleeping. Back when Jesus departed in 33 to travel abroad, these parables made more sense. After all he assigned persons like Peter to "feed his little sheep" in 33 CE and then departed. He then returned in 1914 or 1918 for an inspection (of the Temple) and judged a group as ready for a greater assignment. But now Jesus arrives in 1914, to makes an assignment, but remains present to arrive later to make a judgment and greater appointments over all his belongings. Obviously the whole thing was turned into a mess in order to twist 1914 and 1919 into the mix, but it doesn't work anymore, because Jesus never departs after making the assignments. And of course, in the Watchtower version, we have now eliminated the evil slave as a non-existent hypothetical, even though Jesus always considered two three or four or even more slaves, each one according to his work. The Watchtower avoids Luke's version altogether because it might require thinking about who is represented by the non-existent hypothetical second slave who gets punished severely, and the third non-existent hypothetical slave who gets many strokes, and the fourth non-existent hypothetical slave that gets few strokes. But here's the most indiscreet part: No one is declared the "faithful and wise servant" until after that judgment by Jesus. None of them were supposed to presumptuously claim that they were already to be identified as that slave and that any chance of becoming evil or punished is only hypothetical or non-existent. It's up to Jesus to make that judgment when he returns. And of course this points up another major flaw when we claim that this final judgment as faithful results in appointment over all his belongings. At this point, the Watchtower explains that we are no longer talking about the FDS anymore, but the time when ALL the anointed, the GB along with the other 143,966 anointed, are equally appointed over all his belongings at the same time. (With no concern over who those other classes of faithful, less faithful, and unfaithful servants might have been.)

This is, in fact, a pretty easy question to answer. You did hit the nail on the head, as it were, with the definition of "discreet." Here's where we can begin to see why. The primary Watchtower that changed our current definition of the FDS was back in July 15, 2013. The article claimed that the FDS was now specifically and uniquely associated with the Governing Body. There we see the following, which I am including again here, not for you, but mostly for those who might not have read it carefully. *** w13 7/15 p. 20 par. 3 “Who Really Is the Faithful and Discreet Slave?” *** In the past, our publications have said the following: At Pentecost 33 C.E., Jesus appointed the faithful slave over his domestics. The slave represents all anointed Christians on earth as a group at any one time since then. The domestics refer to the same anointed ones as individuals. In 1919, Jesus appointed the faithful slave “over all his belongings”—all his earthly Kingdom interests. The first part of that old view goes back to Russell: that all of the anointed made up the faithful slave. Russell kept that view from 1879 to until about 1897. The assumption was that they would be appointed over all his belongings at the time of their resurrection. Then, in 1897, Russell discreetly published an article stating that the slave was only one person, one individual. Then, very indiscreetly, began publishing letters and articles that addressed himself as that faithful and wise servant (FDS), allowed himself to be referred to like this at conventions, and began referring to the Watchtower publications as "food at the proper time" or "meat in due season." Watchtower publications have said that Russell personally admitted to being the FDS in private. The publications have also stated that, when asked, he would sometimes respond: "Some say the Society is [that servant] . . . some say that I am." An attempt to apply another faithful steward parable to Rutherford began shortly after Russell died. But Rutherford himself continued to teach that Russell had personally been that faithful and wise servant. That didn't last more than a decade, though, because Rutherford went back to Russell's original view that all the 144,000 made up the faithful slave class, and that they fed one another, including themselves, as the domestics. Later it was added that 1919 had been the year that they were appointed over all Christ's belongings. By the 1950's, the "governing body" as the representative officers of the Watch Tower Society began associating themselves more directly with the work of that "faithful and discreet slave." *** w58 1/15 pp. 45-47 pars. 17-23 Overseers in Apocalyptic Times *** Can it still be true that the holy spirit appoints overseers over the congregations of true Christians today? Since the spirit is God’s invisible active force and is silent and unfeelable, how could we be sure that the appointing of overseers is by it today? The Holy Bible, God’s Word, makes this certain.. . . Since 1919 God’s organization has risen up to let the light of his glory shine amid the gross darkness of this world, and the time has come for the fulfillment of his promise: “I will . . . make thy chiefs peaceful and thine overseers righteous.” (Isa. 60:1, 2, 17, AS; LXX; Thomson; Bagster) We are living also in the time of final fulfillment of the prophecy to which the apostle Peter referred on the day of Pentecost, namely: “It shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: and also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my Spirit.” (Joel 2:28, 29, AS; Acts 2:16-18) We should therefore expect the spirit’s activity to include appointing overseers. 19 As in the days of the apostles, the Christian flock of Jehovah God has over it a visible governing body. It acts for and in expression of the “faithful and discreet slave” whom Jesus Christ has appointed since coming into his kingdom in the heavens in 1914. When warning his apostles about his coming for the judgment of his followers at an unknown hour in the time of the end of this old world, Jesus said: “Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics to give them their food at the proper time? Happy is that slave if his master on arriving finds him doing so. Truly I say to you, He will appoint him over all his belongings.” (Matt. 24:45-47) Since 1919 this “faithful and discreet slave,” who is a composite person made up of all anointed Christian joint heirs of Jesus Christ, has been taking care of “all his belongings” on earth. The slave has been faithfully giving out the spiritual, Biblical food at the proper time, so that there is no spiritual famine among the Christian witnesses of Jehovah. To make this “faithful and discreet slave” class equal to their heavy responsibilities in these last days, God through Christ has poured out his spirit upon them in these last days, in complete fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy. 20 The governing body of the “faithful and discreet slave” class is taken from the members of this same anointed, spirit-filled class. By God’s spirit it is functioning. So, then, when the appointment of overseers is made by this governing body in harmony with the requirements laid down for overseers, it is really by the spirit that such overseers are appointed, although through human intermediaries. As the modern history of Jehovah’s witnesses shows, this is specially true since 1932, when the system of elective elders and deacons [ministerial servants] was done away with in their congregations. 21 The governing body of mature members of the “faithful and discreet slave” class always seeks the guidance of God’s holy spirit in appointing responsible men in the congregations overseers, together with their assistants, the ministerial servants. They do not act according to any personal favoritism or any bias. . . . 22 When, now, the governing body designates overseers that meet those plainly stated requirements, it is really the holy spirit that leads to the appointing of such overseers; it is really the holy spirit that makes such overseers. This fact becomes more evident when we note that it is also the fullness of the indwelling of the holy spirit in the candidate for the office of overseer that influences his appointment. The candidate must show that he is filled with the spirit by the way he conducts himself and his family (if he has one). . . . 23 In consideration of the spirit’s fruitage produced by the candidate and in harmony with the written requirements set out in the Holy Scriptures written by men under the operation of the holy spirit, the governing body acts, being itself moved by the holy spirit for which it prays to God that it may guide the governing body. In every respect, then, the spirit of God comes to the fore in the matter of appointing overseers. So today as well as in Paul’s day it may be said that the holy spirit appoints overseers over the flock of God that he purchased “with the blood of his own Son.” (Acts 20:28, Schonfield) If in course of time any overseer turns out bad, we must remember that even Judas Iscariot, whom Jesus himself selected to be an apostolic overseer, turned out bad, betraying his own Overseer, the Chief Shepherd, to his enemies to be killed. I included a little extra from the context of the earlier Watchtower as foundation for discussing some related aspects such as the actual meaning of spirit-led organization, etc. But the main point is to keep in mind the two primary views most of us have held during our lifetime as Witnesses: (1950's-2013) The GB, especially since 1919, acts for and in expression of the FDS, which has included all the anointed since 33 CE., but which has been appointed over all Christ's belongings since 1919. (2013-present) The GB, since 1919, is now the same thing as the FDS, which no longer includes all the anointed, but only the GB, and has only been appointed since 1919, but will not be appointed over all Christ's belongings until a future time when all of the anointed are in heaven.

Your definition provides a clue as to why the Governing Body cannot currently claim to be the "faithful and discreet slave." This does not mean that they are not well-meaning in their goal to participate as a class of faithful and discreet slaves. And this does not mean that they will ultimately fail to live up to their goal. (1 Timothy 3:1-7) . . .If any man is reaching out for an office of overseer, he is desirous of a fine work. 2 The overseer should therefore be irreprehensible, a husband of one wife, moderate in habits, sound in mind, orderly, hospitable, qualified to teach, 3 not a drunken brawler, not a smiter, but reasonable, not belligerent, not a lover of money, 4 a man presiding over his own household in a fine manner, having children in subjection with all seriousness; 5 (if indeed any man does not know how to preside over his own household, how will he take care of God’s congregation?) 6 not a newly converted man, for fear that he might get puffed up [with pride] and fall into the judgment passed upon the Devil. 7 Moreover, he should also have a fine testimony from people on the outside, in order that he might not fall into reproach and a snare of the Devil. I suppose that Rutherford might not have qualified, based on some of these criteria, and I think most of us would agree that Hayden Covington was a "newly converted" man, relatively speaking. But I think we have excellent reasons to accept the current Governing Body members as qualified overseers, and they therefore deserve respect, double honor, deference, benefit of the doubt, and our willingness to follow their leading example, and, as we see how their conduct works out, to imitate their faith.

Absolutely! But again this had nothing to do with whether they were guilty of fornication, and for all I know, they might have been. This was only shared to remind us that we haven't always treated the "two-witness rule" as sacrosanct.

Yes, the regular JW believes in a rapture (although some still do not yet know that this is what they believe, because the teaching is rarely repeated). The primary scriptures that indicates the "rapture" have now been explained to be a sudden (instantaneous) taking of that person, while still alive, from earth to heaven. The reason we avoid the term "rapture" is because most of Christendom believes that the person keeps their physical body, and we believe that the physical body is instantly turned into a spiritual body at the time of the "rapture." Other scriptures that seem to refer to a rapture have not been interpreted to refer to this same "rapture" event: (Matthew 24:39-41) . . .and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be. 40 Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken along and the other abandoned. 41 Two women will be grinding at the hand mill; one will be taken along and the other abandoned. Those verses (and equivalents in Luke) might be another reason that some JWs are not yet aware that they believe in a "rapture." But the recently clarified explanation for the verses below has changed the way we speak about the rapture. (1 Thessalonians 4:16, 17) . . .because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first. 17 Afterward we the living who are surviving will, together with them, be caught away in clouds to meet the Lord in the air. . . (1 Corinthians 15:51, 52) 51 Look! I tell YOU a sacred secret: We shall not all fall asleep [in death], but we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, during the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised up incorruptible, and we shall be changed. Note the 2015 Watchtower: *** w15 7/15 p. 18 par. 14 “Your Deliverance Is Getting Near”! *** So, what is this gathering work that Jesus mentions? It is the time when the remaining ones of the 144,000 will receive their heavenly reward. (1 Thess. 4:15-17; Rev. 14:1) This event will take place at some point after the beginning of the attack by Gog of Magog. (Ezek. 38:11) Then these words of Jesus will be fulfilled: “At that time the righteous ones will shine as brightly as the sun in the Kingdom of their Father.”—Matt. 13:43. Does this mean that there will be a “rapture” of the anointed ones? Many in Christendom believe, according to this teaching, that Christians will be bodily caught up from the earth. Then, they expect that Jesus will visibly return to rule the earth. However, the Bible clearly shows that “the sign of the Son of man” will appear in heaven and that Jesus will come “on the clouds of heaven.” (Matt. 24:30) Both of these expressions imply invisibility. Additionally, “flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s Kingdom.” So those who will be taken to heaven will first need to be “changed, in a moment, in the blink of an eye, during the last trumpet.” (Read 1 Corinthians 15:50-53.) Therefore, while we do not use the term “rapture” here because of its wrong connotation, the remaining faithful anointed will be gathered together in an instant of time.

I suspect that's a possibility. The young man told me that she claimed she was offered a "reproof" and, of course, loss of pioneer privileges if she would just admit to whatever they had done. He says she was very upset over this. But I only know the "he said" details, none of the "she said."