Anna

Yes. Of course. Moses had a hierarchy. The Watchtower has admitted that the organization can be thought of in this way.

I do not think it necessary to understand this on the basis of James being complicit as a Judaizer. I would say that the fact that these men came from James has no more significance than the fact that Acts 15:1 describes men coming from Judea.
The general attitude of of the apostles and elders to such "Judaizing" efforts is expressed at Acts 15:24. So these men mentioned at Galatians 2:12 were expressing their own preferences, not at the direction of James.
Peter, with an ill thought out and cowardly response, rightly incurred the wrath of Paul on this occasion. It all illustrates how easy it is to "talk the walk" as opposed to "walk the talk". The clear and assertive proclamations and decisions made at the circumcision conference in 49CE may well have been easy in view of the fact that the vast majority of Christians in Jerusalem were formerly Jewish, and indeed the entire governing body of the time were the same. However, when Christians of that background found themselves in an environment where far more Gentile Christians were present, it was a different matter.
Cultural and traditional practice has a strong hold on humans and their behaviour when out of their comfort zone in that regard is charcteristically to cluster around what they are familiar with. Judaizers appealed to both religious and racial pride and fear of man. The insidious effect of their teachings however was to separate men from Christ and to work against the interests of Jehovah's ongoing purpose. This was hardly at the forefront of their intentions. However, Paul was fully cognizant, hence his very strong and demonstrative reactions to their influence, both expressed in his reproof of Peter and his subsequent letters.
There is no dispute regarding Paul's recognition and admonition to others to recognise Christ as the head of the congregation. However I cannot agree with the notion of Paul suggesting that theocratic arrangements were unimportant. This is simply because it does not agree with Paul's own behaviour.
His acceptance of the spirit-directed action of the Antioch congregation prophets and teachers to approve his ministry into international territory (Acts13:1-3). His subsequent report back to the same congregation on the success of his mission (Acts 14:26-28). His delegation by the same congregation  to go to the Jerusalem apostles and elders on the circumcision issue (Acts 15:2). His participation in the ensuing conference (Acts 15:12). His obvious acceptance of the authorative consideration and scripturally based decisions of those apostles and older men as reflected in his acceptance of being sent as part of a delegation from that same group, and his actually being being dismissed as a part of that delegation to travel back to Antich to relay the decisions of that Jerusalem body (Acts15:22);. His subsequent returning to the Gentile territories to deliver the decrees of the Jerusalem apostles and older men for their observance. His acceptance of such direction, admittedly a recognition of Christ's headship as expressed through the officers of both the Antioch and Jerusalem congregations, demonstrated his acceptance of central authority thus expressed.
His remarks regarding a "human tribunal" relate to those in Corinth who sought to undermine his authority as an apostle.Their assessments of his qualifications were of no consequence. His other references to his authority and his seeming discounting of apostolic approval as a determining factor in the validity of his role as an agent of the Christ, are  to show the Corinthians that his authority at Christ's direction was as valid as and on a par with that of the apostles. There is no doubt however that all the individual apostles, including Paul, were quite happy to subject themselves as individuals to the decisions (decrees) and directions agreed by that body of older men in Jerusalem as a whole. 

I don't really know any of them. I know how the position got there, and I know what doctrines and practices they promote. It's because I accept most of those doctrines. 100 percent of the important ones, in my opinion. I don't think of them as a "governing body" except in a functional sense as decision makers who try to keep the teachings as consistent as possible for the sake of unity around the world. This is a positive thing about Jehovah's Witnesses that a consistent set of teachings can be accepted by millions of persons without disorder or contentiousness. The method used produces a danger of making it too easy to accept (and "enforce") false doctrines in the same way, but there are very few "false doctrines" in my opinion. If, in your opinion, there are many false doctrines, or if the specific ones you believe are false are that important to you, then I understand why your judgment of them would be different than mine.
Yes. I think they are making a mistake in this regard too. But, in general, only a very small minority of those claiming to be anointed seem to think things should be different. I'd wager that the vast majority of them believe they are being well represented by them. Also the GB do not necessarily think of this position as "over" the rest of the anointed. Remember that the service they provide is a ministry of a "slave." One of the ministries that Paul spoke of was the ability to "administer." A portion of the idea that this puts them "above" the rest may spring from the mind of fleshly persons who cannot distinguish a specialized service from being special. However, the idea that they form some kind of tribunal that should judge other anointed, or that others should be obedient to is probably wrong, imo. It might, in fact, spring from the fleshly, unspiritual understanding from their own minds. This doesn't reduce the value of the kind of work they can accomplish in such a unique circumstance, but it is one of the dangers that could befall any of us imperfect humans.
(1 Corinthians 10:12) . . .So let the one who thinks he is standing beware that he does not fall.
You may have pointed out a danger, or it could be that less educated are more humble and more receptive to spiritual truth. Therefore a decision has been made to focus the efforts on an audience that should have been focused on even more in the past. A simplified Bible, with simplified publications to go with it, and a simpler study method might all be good things, even from the perspective of Luke 14:11.
Personally, however, I agree that it has been like a pendulum swing to a slightly "simpler" audience after saturating a more sophisticated audience until further efforts on that latter audience appeared wasted.
Many current Witnesses have the idea that this is a kind of "dumbing down" of the audience resulting in a dumbing down of the new ones coming in. If persons are overly concerned about that, perhaps it is based on their own prejudices or an unrequited desire to show off just how sophisticated their own knowledge might be. In our congregational setting, the goal is love for one another. This should be even easier if all of us show more childlike love for one another, and can stop taking ourselves so seriously.
I think deliberate is a strong word to use with "err." For the most part, I think all the mistakes have been well-meaning. There are some mistakes that reveal a different kind of mental conflict, in my opinion. These can be looked at as deliberate mistakes. Sometimes it can include a deliberate choice to avoid a change when it seems a change is necessary both Biblically and practically. Sometimes it can be from a lack of courage or self-confidence. Similar to Peter and the "James gang" the organization has had a historical problem with cultishness. This is admitted in our own publications that there was a Russell cult. Fred Franz was steeped in that exact kind of cult thinking (parallel dispensations, numerology, date predictions, etc.) so that this mentality remained strong and respected until Fred Franz died. He had so much respect as an "oracle" that all these "class" definitions and prophetic explanations were never challenged much until a few years after he died. So some mistakes are more about deliberate hanging on to tradition, which blinds people to the validity of God's word. This kind of blindness is wrong, but not necessarily "deliberate."
Why would 12 be too many? 8 is about the same. 20 is about the same. Considering the new abilities of technology and the much greater size of the current congregations of JWs compared to the first century congregations, perhaps 1,000 would not be too many, or perhaps there is a way to allow millions to have input, and merely allow a secretary or a technology application "bot" to filter out the noise and produce a consensus. I don't think we'd be quite as comfortable with that. Humans tend to like hierarchies of people, representative government, etc., in spite of the potential errors.
Some do. I'm sure of it. But my point was that a hierarchy of people are in place to filter out and merge communications so that the GB aren't bothered by any and every little thing that comes up. Notice that in a response to something Outta Here said I quoted:
(1 Corinthians 1:11, 12) 11 For some from the house of Chloʹe have informed me regarding you, my brothers, that there are dissensions among you.
Paul had no problem "snitching" about where the information came from, and noted they had been able to get their issue to Paul directly, and Paul addressed the issue in his letter. There is a lot of secrecy in these communications today that I think is unnecessary. And there are stories of repercussions by those who used their own name.
Well, I'll stop here.

I agree 100 percent with everything you said up to this point, and then, of course, I paused a bit at this statement. I expect that it should apply to me as well as others. This was a powerful bit of counsel, and I'm re-evaluating my own position on what Paul is saying in Galatians and the letters to the Corinthians. The details of that re-evaluation will be based on the specifics in Anna's posts, which I'll get to as time permits.
I'd like to respond to this, but it's probably too soon, as I might end up taking back my current understanding. In that event, I apologize in advance, to any who were (or would be) unduly influenced by my own opinions and understandings. 
Of course, I would still like to say a little about what I think you are saying here. 
I don't think Paul had disdain for those taking the lead. He had a disdain, or worse (condemnation and "curses") for anyone who interfered with persons who had accepted the "good news." (Matthew 18:5-6, Jesus expressed a "millstone curse" for the same reason.) But this was not a general or continued "disdain" that held a grudge or couldn't forgive when he looked at the overall picture. I assume that Paul did not continue to consider Peter or James as stumbling blocks to the ministry after things began cleared up during the transitional time between Acts 15 and Acts 21. (Jesus didn't permanently call Peter, Satan, when he was a stumbling block.)
I assume Paul is speaking to the Galatians this way, because the Acts 15 meeting had already happened and yet the Galatians evidently still BELIEVE (for some reason) that there was authority (from somewhere) for demanding adherence to Jewish law that somehow overrode the message that Paul had already taught them.
Paul gives the Galatians an earlier example of this same problem on the same issue (where circumcision was the central issue, but by extension it must have also meant adherence to Jewish law and practice. See Galatians 5:2,3). In this earlier example the problem was focused, he says, on certain men from James, who caused Peter be afraid of the circumcised class, and who influenced Peter and Barnabas, so that Paul called them out on their hypocrisy. Paul told Peter face to face that he "stood condemned." (see NWT footnote or Greek Interlinear.) This appears to follow up on Paul's earlier words that anyone who declares as good news something beyond which they had accepted should stand "accursed."
(Galatians 2:11, 12) 11 However, when Ceʹphas came to Antioch, I resisted him face-to-face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men from James arrived, he used to eat with people of the nations; but when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcised class. (NWT, with footnotes inserted in red.) (1 Corinthians 16:22) 22 If anyone has no affection for the Lord, let him be accursed.. . .
(Galatians 1:8, 9) . . .However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond the good news we declared to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, I now say again, Whoever is declaring to you as good news something beyond what you accepted, let him be accursed.
But this, as I said, was not a general disdain for those taking the lead. It was a temporary critique of a problem initiated either by James, if he gave them instructions, or by these certain men from James on their own. Still, it was not a simple matter that Peter was  just more comfortable around his own people, and his old habits. Paul says Peter was afraid of these men from James (who were of the circumcised class).
Even of those whom Paul considered to have been made into stumbling blocks to his ministry, he did not blame the persons themselves for that. He counseled the persons who gave too much attention to personalities, personalities such as himself, Apollos or Peter. But he still accepted these "leading men" were ministers through whom the Corinthians had become believers.
(1 Corinthians 1:11, 12) 11 For some from the house of Chloʹe have informed me regarding you, my brothers, that there are dissensions among you. 12 What I mean is this, that each one of you says: “I belong to Paul,” “But I to A·polʹlos,” “But I to Ceʹphas,” “But I to Christ.”
(1 Corinthians 3:3-6) 3 for you are still fleshly. Since there are jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly and are you not walking as men do? 4 For when one says, “I belong to Paul,” but another says, “I to A·polʹlos,” are you not acting like mere men? 5 What, then, is A·polʹlos? Yes, what is Paul? Ministers through whom you became believers, just as the Lord granted each one. 6 I planted, A·polʹlos watered, but God kept making it grow,
(1 Corinthians 3:20-4:3) 20 And again: “Jehovah knows that the reasonings of the wise men are futile.” 21 So let no one boast in men; for all things belong to you, 22 whether Paul or A·polʹlos or Ceʹphas or the world or life or death or things now here or things to come, all things belong to you; 23 in turn you belong to Christ; Christ, in turn, belongs to God. 4 A man should regard us as attendants of Christ and stewards of God’s sacred secrets. 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. . . .
I included all three passages for another reason. It could very well be that it's a product of a "fleshly" mind that might tend to undervalue or even disdain the leadership of those in responsible positions. Some disdain authority for their own iconoclastic reasons or for unknown or illogical reasons. But Paul showed above that it was the "fleshly" mind that gave too much regard to leadership positions. In fact, Paul shows that these leadership positions are unimportant. Those who think that such men are capable of making a human tribunal of some kind of important authority are mistaken. After all, all things already belong to the members of the Christian congregation. It's not a matter of these members reporting to Apollos or Peter or Paul. It's just as appropriate to say that Peter should report to the members of the congregation. Paul is surely saying that there should be no central authority other than Christ who belongs to God.
It seems that Paul's point here is that it is the danger of the fleshly mind to look to specific people in the congregations as some kind of authority. But all of us should be servants to one another instead, he says.

I think he means by taking a ‘wait and see’ attitude, rather than diving in and correcting matters. It does not sound as though they didn’t know just what to correct.
They didn’t go in lockstep back then, is my take, and Paul was confident enough in that to operate freely without ‘checking in’ for authorization. 
But neither do they go in lockstep today, despite obvious greater organization—which is entirely consistent with the greater field (and harvest) that is being cultivated. Many arrangements originate outside of Bethel, which is initially very hesitant, even suspect of them, until they see how it works out, after which it gets behind and magnifies them. Witnessing methods, construction techniques, internet utilization, for example.

Yes. Without some sort of governing arrangement—call it what you will—the Bible becomes a relic with the death of the apostles. Similar to how the constitution becomes a relic in the absence of a Supreme Court.
I swear that there are some who would prefer it that way. That way they can personalize it any way they want. Don’t like this or that? Simply interpret it away—no harm done.

First of all, I should repeat that I have deep respect for the elders who call themselves the "Governing Body" because they have taken the lead in speaking and teaching. They are worthy of "double honor" for their hard work and the heavy responsibility they have taken upon themselves. Granted that this does not excuse them from false teachings and doing nothing about traditional false teachings from the past. Nor does it excuse them for not doing enough to expose the potential gravity and extent of child sexual abuse and child physical abuse. I'm not trying to divert this topic to the specifics of any other issues of doctrines and procedures.
I know you'll disagree, but this is just to explain my own view. It's just that I wanted you to know that I think these particular elders, who call themselves a Governing Body, have put themselves in a unique and valuable position for the overall benefit of congregations worldwide. 
They have years of experience studying, speaking, and teaching on Bible topics. They are in a position to discuss certain difficult doctrinal issues with others who have years of experience studying the Bible. The size of this group of elders focusing on the study of the Bible for teaching purposes is kept manageable for purposes of efficient discussion and decision making (8 or so persons). There is always a ready "crew" of persons who can help handle related issues of logistics or issues of lesser importance. There is always a ready "crew" of persons who can help research issues, handle their incoming and outgoing communications, translation printing, etc. They are in a position to hear questions and concerns about current doctrines and procedures that could potentially come from all over the world.  They have years of experience working with various congregations. They have years of experience traveling to congregations in various places in the world to be aware of various customs and practices that differ from their own. They have a mindset that makes them want to imitate the serious responsibility that the early Christian apostles had when they devote themselves to prayer and teaching. They have the ability to respond to questions and issues very quickly and consistently in a way that the entire world of congregations can benefit from. Of course, this is fraught with all kinds of dangers and potential abuse. Or a small mistake can quickly turn into a large one. Things that are legal and expected in one country might get the congregations in trouble in another country, for example.
There are other things, of course, but these ones are important to me.
Surely you would think that in any church or congregation there might be a need for organization and leadership. Agreeing on meeting times, topics to speak about, topics for Bible study, activities, care for the building, what to do with contributions, and even issues of who might join the church, who might need to be dismissed from the church, who might need counsel or adjustment, who might have special needs the church can take care of, etc., etc.
Most people would have no problem with this on a local church-by-church basis. But here we have tens of thousands of these congregations all around the world, and all of them are happy to teach exactly the same message. A group of elders who are deemed capable of handling this bigger responsibility is, in essence, no different than the local congregations. It's just that some of their functions will necessarily carry even greater responsibility.
This might be true. But it can also just be a logistical problem. Remember how Moses handled the millions in a single "congregation" that began draining his time and energy. He ended up appointing a "hierarchy of command" similar to any large army or large business corporation, so that concerns could be handled more efficiently. Also, on a personal level, while at Bethel I sat at meetings with as many as 5 GB members at the same congregation meeting. While visiting Warwick several months ago, I sat in a meeting with 2 members of the GB and 3 GB "Helpers" (and the wife of a deceased GB member, Sydlik). I could have gone up to any one of them after the meeting to ask questions. In fact, I did. I asked Brother Morris, "How are you?"
Anyway, in my opinion, the Governing Body provides a practical committee of elders handling issues that elders should handle. The difference being that they handle issues that come in from the worldwide congregation. As long as all the persons who listen to them are willing to question and critique the doctrines and processes, as all Christians have a duty to do, then there is nothing wrong with having a "Governing Body." (You might know that we are not the only religion that happens to call such a committee of "church decision-makers" a "Governing Body.") That might not be the best phrase, but it's clear that the congregations generally agree that it's appropriate to have such a group.
I personally don't agree that any such group should make a claim that they are THE faithful and discreet slave prophesied to come into existence at a proper time beginning in 1919. It's indiscreet and unfaithful to the teachings of the scriptures to accept them in that specific capacity. I'm sure they are making a mistake in that regard, but again, this is just my own opinion. It doesn't stop me from accepting and respecting 98.6 percent of what is published by them.

The "highly regarded" bit is the "double honor" bit of 1Tim.5:7, and with that goes the "heavier judgement" bit of James 3:1. Unfortunately, despite Jehovah and Jesus being the ones with whom those with responsibilty have an accounting, humans with their fleshly tendencies also tend to hold ones they view as prominent to account. From selfies to scandal to assassination (both literal and figurative), humans bathe in the imagined reflected glory of others.Today's obsession with "celebrity" is nothing new.
Paul's self-imposed absence from prominence for 14 years is just a reflection of his modesty. His unique experience in his encounter with Jesus, almost on a par with the Transfiguration witnessed by  Peter, James, and John, was no basis for him seeking prominence in the eyes of others. His seeming disdain for those taking the lead is only spun that way by fleshly minds.  Paul's recounting of his early years experiences is his way of dealing with the unwarranted attention so typical of humans. He is always at pains to explain the undeserved nature of his privilege of service. (Eph.3:8). I cannot imagine he would ever engender a shred of disrespect for Christ's arrangement of matters in the congregation. Any extrapolation on the Ist Century account of Paul's dealings with the GB of the time must fall within that parameter.
 

I am under the impression that these brothers were not who Paul had in mind, but he was talking about the "Judeizers" 
Didn't he call James, Peter and John pillars? I'm not on my pc so I can't check. I will probably have to come back to this later with some scriptures...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to defend the J-GB here at all costs (I will also call them that for simplicity sake). In fact, the example in Galatians and Acts clearly show that anyone can err and succumb to wrong reasoning and hypocrisy, even those who are "highly regarded" which must include present day prominent ones which includes the present day GB. The experience Paul describes is a good reminder that we must always obey God as ruler rather than men, or in fact even angels if they declare a different message, as Paul points out. But, his experience also shows that even though the situation was very difficult (a change from circumcision, to no circumcision required!) it was able to be handled correctly, and resolved by the J-GB, thanks to Paul bringing attention to it. It also shows that these brothers were able to work things out amicably and that even though Paul stayed away from them for 14 years prior to that, it most likely wasn't due to some kind of animosity or disrespect on his part but probably because he was too busy and did not need to consult with them as there was nothing new going on and he was already working in the ministry that he had received directly from Jesus, which the J-GB was in full agreement with.
I realize that my view is similar to what WT teaches, but I reached that conclusion myself the other week. My mum and I were preparing for the midweek meeting, and of course as you probably know it was reading of Galatians 1-3. Previously, I had had a similar understanding as you, and I told my mum that Paul called the J-GB false brothers, but then I started reading the account again, and the cross references to Acts and I had to revise my opinion. It jumped out at me that it was the former sect of the Pharisees that were insisting on circumcision and were the cause of all the trouble in Jerusalem and that Paul was referring to them when he wrote to the Galatians about certain ones distorting the good news about the Christ and being false brothers.
The situation with Peter highlighted that even prominent ones can be guilty of undesirable traits, (and we see this with Peter on more than one occasion)..... and then also Barnabas who had traveled with Paul, was led along with them in their hypocrisy.
I am not sure what you mean by "passively" sending out spies. Surely they were either sent out, or they took the initiative themselves to go spying.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to defend the J-GB here at all costs (I will also call them that for simplicity sake). In fact, the example in Galatians and Acts clearly show that anyone can err and succumb to wrong reasoning and hypocrisy, even those who are "highly regarded" which must include present day prominent ones which includes the present day GB. The experience Paul describes is a good reminder that we must always obey God as ruler rather than men, or in fact even angels if they declare a different message, as Paul points out. But, his experience also shows that even though the situation was very difficult (a change from circumcision, to no circumcision required!) it was able to be handled correctly, and resolved by the J-GB, thanks to Paul bringing attention to it. It also shows that these brothers were able to work things out amicably and that even though Paul stayed away from them for 14 years prior to that, it most likely wasn't due to some kind of animosity or disrespect on his part but probably because he was too busy and did not need to consult with them as there was nothing new going on and he was already working in the ministry that he had received directly from Jesus, which the J-GB was in full agreement with.
I realize that my view is similar to what WT teaches, but I reached that conclusion myself the other week. My mum and I were preparing for the midweek meeting, and of course as you probably know it was reading of Galatians 1-3. Previously, I had had a similar understanding as you, and I told my mum that Paul called the J-GB false brothers, but then I started reading the account again, and the cross references to Acts and I had to revise my opinion. It jumped out at me that it was the former sect of the Pharisees that were insisting on circumcision and were the cause of all the trouble in Jerusalem and that Paul was referring to them when he wrote to the Galatians about certain ones distorting the good news about the Christ and being false brothers.
The situation with Peter highlighted that even prominent ones can be guilty of undesirable traits, (and we see this with Peter on more than one occasion)..... and then also Barnabas who had traveled with Paul, was led along with them in their hypocrisy.
I am not sure what you mean by "passively" sending out spies. Surely they were either sent out, or they took the initiative themselves to go spying.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to defend the J-GB here at all costs (I will also call them that for simplicity sake). In fact, the example in Galatians and Acts clearly show that anyone can err and succumb to wrong reasoning and hypocrisy, even those who are "highly regarded" which must include present day prominent ones which includes the present day GB. The experience Paul describes is a good reminder that we must always obey God as ruler rather than men, or in fact even angels if they declare a different message, as Paul points out. But, his experience also shows that even though the situation was very difficult (a change from circumcision, to no circumcision required!) it was able to be handled correctly, and resolved by the J-GB, thanks to Paul bringing attention to it. It also shows that these brothers were able to work things out amicably and that even though Paul stayed away from them for 14 years prior to that, it most likely wasn't due to some kind of animosity or disrespect on his part but probably because he was too busy and did not need to consult with them as there was nothing new going on and he was already working in the ministry that he had received directly from Jesus, which the J-GB was in full agreement with.
I realize that my view is similar to what WT teaches, but I reached that conclusion myself the other week. My mum and I were preparing for the midweek meeting, and of course as you probably know it was reading of Galatians 1-3. Previously, I had had a similar understanding as you, and I told my mum that Paul called the J-GB false brothers, but then I started reading the account again, and the cross references to Acts and I had to revise my opinion. It jumped out at me that it was the former sect of the Pharisees that were insisting on circumcision and were the cause of all the trouble in Jerusalem and that Paul was referring to them when he wrote to the Galatians about certain ones distorting the good news about the Christ and being false brothers.
The situation with Peter highlighted that even prominent ones can be guilty of undesirable traits, (and we see this with Peter on more than one occasion)..... and then also Barnabas who had traveled with Paul, was led along with them in their hypocrisy.
I am not sure what you mean by "passively" sending out spies. Surely they were either sent out, or they took the initiative themselves to go spying.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to defend the J-GB here at all costs (I will also call them that for simplicity sake). In fact, the example in Galatians and Acts clearly show that anyone can err and succumb to wrong reasoning and hypocrisy, even those who are "highly regarded" which must include present day prominent ones which includes the present day GB. The experience Paul describes is a good reminder that we must always obey God as ruler rather than men, or in fact even angels if they declare a different message, as Paul points out. But, his experience also shows that even though the situation was very difficult (a change from circumcision, to no circumcision required!) it was able to be handled correctly, and resolved by the J-GB, thanks to Paul bringing attention to it. It also shows that these brothers were able to work things out amicably and that even though Paul stayed away from them for 14 years prior to that, it most likely wasn't due to some kind of animosity or disrespect on his part but probably because he was too busy and did not need to consult with them as there was nothing new going on and he was already working in the ministry that he had received directly from Jesus, which the J-GB was in full agreement with.
I realize that my view is similar to what WT teaches, but I reached that conclusion myself the other week. My mum and I were preparing for the midweek meeting, and of course as you probably know it was reading of Galatians 1-3. Previously, I had had a similar understanding as you, and I told my mum that Paul called the J-GB false brothers, but then I started reading the account again, and the cross references to Acts and I had to revise my opinion. It jumped out at me that it was the former sect of the Pharisees that were insisting on circumcision and were the cause of all the trouble in Jerusalem and that Paul was referring to them when he wrote to the Galatians about certain ones distorting the good news about the Christ and being false brothers.
The situation with Peter highlighted that even prominent ones can be guilty of undesirable traits, (and we see this with Peter on more than one occasion)..... and then also Barnabas who had traveled with Paul, was led along with them in their hypocrisy.
I am not sure what you mean by "passively" sending out spies. Surely they were either sent out, or they took the initiative themselves to go spying.

Just for clarity. This parenthesised description of Peter's restoration to favour is referring to his denial of Christ and events of 33-36CE several years PRIOR to his reproof by Paul isn't it? 

Ok. My understanding from reading this portion of Galatians ( 2:6-9) is that it is not referring to the same people as the portion in Galatians 2:1-5:
"Then after 14 years I again went up to Jerusalem with Barʹna·bas, also taking Titus along with me. I went up as a result of a revelation, and I presented to them the good news that I am preaching among the nations. This was done privately, however, before the men who were highly regarded, to make sure that I was not running or had not run in vain.  Nevertheless, not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, although he was a Greek. But that matter came up because of the false brothers brought in quietly, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we enjoy in union with Christ Jesus, so that they might completely enslave us;we did not yield in submission to them, no, not for a moment, so that the truth of the good news might continue with you".
What I am understanding here is that Paul went up to Jerusalem to speak with the "the highly regarded men/pillars" to talk to them about a matter involving false brothers (Superfine apostles/Judaizers).
Then the following verses (6-9) I understand Paul to be talking about the  important/highly regarded men/pillars saying that it does not matter that they were circumcised because: "God does not go by outward appearance"  and so they did not impart anything new to him in that regard, on the contrary they saw Paul had been entrusted with seeing to the uncircumcised in the same way Peter had been entrusted with the circumcised. And when they (those who seemed to be pillars) recognized that, they gave him (Paul) and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship. I don't see any animosity between them and Paul, even though Paul had to chastise one of the highly regarded men/pillars - Peter (who had obviously not remained in an unfavorable position as he was given the keys to the Kingdom later).
However, those who Paul called false brothers seem to be the same ones he is talking about in Acts 15: 1-2 and the same ones he goes to Jerusalem to talk to the "highly regarded men/pillars" about. "Now some men came down from Ju·deʹa and began to teach the brothers: “Unless you get circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”  But after quite a bit of dissension and disputing by Paul and Barʹna·bas with them, it was arranged for Paul, Barʹna·bas, and some of the others to go up to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem regarding this issue".
So it seems that these men from Judea were the Judaizers who insisted that without circumcision there is no salvation, not those who were in Jerusalem (the highly regarded men/pillars) even though some, like Peter had succumbed to a pretense for a short time because of fear of man (and even Barnabas succumbed) but then must have responded to Paul's correction (Galatians 2:11) However,  aren't the "false brothers/Judaizers" (those of whom the apostles in Jerusalem , he highly regarded men/ pillars wrote in Acts 15:23-14) the ones who caused trouble?: “The apostles and the elders, your brothers, to those brothers in Antioch, Syria, and Ci·liʹcia who are from the nations: Greetings! Since we have heard that some went out from among us and caused you trouble with what they have said,  trying to subvert you, although we did not give them any instructions "........

Ok. My understanding from reading this portion of Galatians ( 2:6-9) is that it is not referring to the same people as the portion in Galatians 2:1-5:
"Then after 14 years I again went up to Jerusalem with Barʹna·bas, also taking Titus along with me. I went up as a result of a revelation, and I presented to them the good news that I am preaching among the nations. This was done privately, however, before the men who were highly regarded, to make sure that I was not running or had not run in vain.  Nevertheless, not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, although he was a Greek. But that matter came up because of the false brothers brought in quietly, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we enjoy in union with Christ Jesus, so that they might completely enslave us;we did not yield in submission to them, no, not for a moment, so that the truth of the good news might continue with you".
What I am understanding here is that Paul went up to Jerusalem to speak with the "the highly regarded men/pillars" to talk to them about a matter involving false brothers (Superfine apostles/Judaizers).
Then the following verses (6-9) I understand Paul to be talking about the  important/highly regarded men/pillars saying that it does not matter that they were circumcised because: "God does not go by outward appearance"  and so they did not impart anything new to him in that regard, on the contrary they saw Paul had been entrusted with seeing to the uncircumcised in the same way Peter had been entrusted with the circumcised. And when they (those who seemed to be pillars) recognized that, they gave him (Paul) and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship. I don't see any animosity between them and Paul, even though Paul had to chastise one of the highly regarded men/pillars - Peter (who had obviously not remained in an unfavorable position as he was given the keys to the Kingdom later).
However, those who Paul called false brothers seem to be the same ones he is talking about in Acts 15: 1-2 and the same ones he goes to Jerusalem to talk to the "highly regarded men/pillars" about. "Now some men came down from Ju·deʹa and began to teach the brothers: “Unless you get circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”  But after quite a bit of dissension and disputing by Paul and Barʹna·bas with them, it was arranged for Paul, Barʹna·bas, and some of the others to go up to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem regarding this issue".
So it seems that these men from Judea were the Judaizers who insisted that without circumcision there is no salvation, not those who were in Jerusalem (the highly regarded men/pillars) even though some, like Peter had succumbed to a pretense for a short time because of fear of man (and even Barnabas succumbed) but then must have responded to Paul's correction (Galatians 2:11) However,  aren't the "false brothers/Judaizers" (those of whom the apostles in Jerusalem , he highly regarded men/ pillars wrote in Acts 15:23-14) the ones who caused trouble?: “The apostles and the elders, your brothers, to those brothers in Antioch, Syria, and Ci·liʹcia who are from the nations: Greetings! Since we have heard that some went out from among us and caused you trouble with what they have said,  trying to subvert you, although we did not give them any instructions "........

Did you tell him that?

Some do!

Yikes. It's hard to believe it could be so "all or nothing." As you say, if we can't think like you, we won't really be able to understand. But it reminds me of a recent discussion about how God commanded "love" from the nation of Israel. They say you can't legislate love, but for some I suppose, even this idea can be a "tutor" leading to Christ. We go through the motions of love until we are responding the way a loving person responds, whether we think we have the same feelings most others do or not. For thousands of years, people have spoken this way about arranged marriages. It's the same part of Corinthians I just quoted from to Tom where the apostle Paul said:
(1 Corinthians 9:16-19) . . .Now if I am declaring the good news, it is no reason for me to boast, for necessity is laid upon me. Really, woe to me if I do not declare the good news! 17 If I do this willingly, I have a reward; but even if I do it against my will, I still have a stewardship entrusted to me. 18 What, then, is my reward? That when I declare the good news, I may offer the good news without cost, to avoid abusing my authority in the good news. 19 For though I am free from all people, I have made myself the slave to all, so that I may gain as many people as possible.
Sorry to second-guess, but I can just imagine that you would quickly focus on the expression "abusing my authority in the good news" and turn this into another comment about the GB. But my point is that we can also work alongside people we don't necessarily trust, and still accomplish some good. If and when we see them abuse their authority, we can point it out as Paul often did, but Paul also reminded the Corinthians here that it was OK for them to support (materially) some of those ministers who asked for material support, even though Paul wanted none of that for himself.

I was looking for an 80 percent up-vote emoji, (🤔?) but I gave you a full up-vote anyway because I think you have hit the target so well with several statements like the one I just re-quoted. I get the sense you are able to "aiming your blows so as not to be striking the air" and "not running aimlessly."
(1 Corinthians 9:24-27) 24 Do you not know that the runners in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win it. 25 Now everyone competing in a contest exercises self-control in all things. Of course, they do it to receive a crown that can perish, but we, one that does not perish. 26 Therefore, the way I am running is not aimlessly; the way I am aiming my blows is so as not to be striking the air; 27 but I pummel my body and lead it as a slave, so that after I have preached to others, I myself should not become disapproved somehow.
Of course, it's not about striking back at others' arguments, but how we continually train ourselves to keep the faith with so many obstacles about. One of the obstacles will always be our own human failings, and how we keep trying to fix these, to become the "approved" person we ought to be. We don't have to broadcast our personal failings, and most of us won't; so we might always give the appearance that we are more concerned about the failings of those around us. Most of the time, we watch how we walk, but there are times when we should give attention to the failings of those around us, and watch how they walk.
This is one of the reasons for this topic, because someone is concerned about the potential failings of another. To some it will look like paranoia, but some persons have a more protective and sometimes "hovering" sense. Reminds me of Jesus' words:  (Matthew 23:37) . . .how often I wanted to gather your children together the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings! But you did not want it.
Those who have seen the evil in people up close and personally may actually have a keener "intuitive" sense of potential evil. Or perhaps that "intuitive" sense has been destroyed for the same reasons. I have no idea, so I am not trying to answer John directly on this topic.
But to follow up on Paul's words about how we fight the fine fight of the faith for ourselves, Jude shows how we must also watch out for obstacles set by others:
(Jude 3-13) . . .Beloved ones, although I was making every effort to write you about the salvation we hold in common, I found it necessary to write you to urge you to put up a hard fight for the faith that was once for all time delivered to the holy ones. 4 My reason is that certain men have slipped in among you who were long ago appointed to this judgment by the Scriptures; they are ungodly men who turn the undeserved kindness of our God into an excuse for brazen conduct and who prove false to our only owner and Lord, Jesus Christ. . . . 12 These are the rocks hidden below water at your love feasts while they feast with you, shepherds who feed themselves without fear; waterless clouds carried here and there by the wind; fruitless trees in late autumn, having died twice and having been uprooted; 13 wild waves of the sea that cast up the foam of their own shame; stars with no set course, for which the blackest darkness stands reserved forever.

This is exactly how it was in the Jewish nation, per laws given to Moses, that serve as a last-ditch method of discipline.
 
I had someone contact me via email, trying to get me going, saying he was one of them—physically in, but mentally out. And—here’s the kicker—he said that after he placed literature he would later return to warn the householder not to read it! Or if he did, not to act upon it. Now, just let me get a mental picture of how that might go down:
Why did he place literature in the first place? He is “a member of a controlling cult that monitors everything he does, and so he has no choice!”—I guess he would have to say something like that. And they “control” him by threatening to take his family away if he doesn’t follow every “command” that they issue! It is too late for him, but not too late for you, Mr. Householder. Run and save yourself!
Really? Could that truly be?
Look, if you want to present the picture that opposers are batsh*t crazy, I can’t think of a better way to do it. On Christmas Eve, he goes to homes to sing Christmas carols. On every other night, he goes to sing Hotel California: 
‘You can check in any time you like—but you can never leave!’
or House of the Rising Sun:
‘and it’s been the ruin of many a poor boy, and God, I know, I’m one’
or For What it’s Worth:
‘step out of line, the men come to take you away!’
Sheesh. People are crazy. Batsh*t crazy—pure and simple.
He also said, (with a hee hee hee) that he was one of thousands! Could that be? Or is his army like that of Gideon, making such a god-awful racket that they seem far larger than they really are? Or is it just him? Or is it not even him—look, going door to door for even the right reason is a challenge—but to go twice to say that you want to take back what you said the first time because you are actually an undercover guerrilla fighter—when the householder wasn’t all that interested in the first place? What kind of a nutcase could pull that off? 
No matter. I don’t run away from these things. I run toward them. I think of the Philippians verse: 
“True, some are preaching the Christ through envy and rivalry, but others also through goodwill. The latter are publicizing the Christ out of love...but the former do it out of contentiousness, not with a pure motive, for they are supposing to stir up tribulation....What then? [Nothing,] except that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is being publicized, and in this I rejoice.” (1:15-18)
The object is to get the good news out there, and these unhinged nutcases only help the cause. To be sure, it is a strange way to get it out there, but it does get it out there. The whole program is strange, as I told one fellow trying to run a garage sale that no one was showing up for. Appear out of nowhere as a complete stranger and say you want to talk about God? Christians are a theatrical spectacle in all the earth, says Paul. Tell me about it.
Nor am I ashamed that there are so many “apostates.” I am proud of them. I consider them additional proof that what we have fulfills the Bible pattern. If we didn’t have any—that would be a test of my faith, for I would wonder why. There is no NT writer who does not deal with apostates. If they existed then, why would they not exist now? In fact, as we get closer to crunch time, you would expect them to be more numerous and virulent, and would wonder what was the problem if they were not.
To be sure, many Witnesses run away from these things—it has been the pattern. The time may come when they will tackle them head-on. Opponents are having their day in the sun—beyond all question they have thrust awkward, even disagreeable, aspects of JWs front and center on the world stage. I take my hat off to them. Well done! That does not mean that I admire them. It is more like when the Jurassic Park security chief says of the pterodactyl circling round to pounce on him, ‘Good girl!’ Then he was eaten alive amidst bloodcurdling screaming.
Will the beasts do the same this time? I think not. We are used to presenting the gem of the Christian way of life through it’s most appealing facet. Let us learn to present it through it’s least appealing one. It is the same gem. “The game is the same, it’s just up on another level.” That’s the song we should be singing—leave it to the lunatics to sing Hotel California!
The trick is not to try to sanitize the present. It is to de-sanitize the past. It is to say of Peter, ‘He is the most prominent one, and yet he cowers like an adolescent—his action can be (probably was) painted as hypocrisy on steroids! Once the Jewish Christians show up, he avoids company of the Gentile ones? And he is given the keys to the kingdom? Yes. That is how it is. God uses people despite phenomenal weaknesses. 
Transport it to the present day. We have people who did not avoid the trap that everyone else has fallen into. They wished not to advertise their dirty laundry—and to carry on as though they had none. They did it for perfectly understandable reasons—for fear of tarnishing the Name that they tried to stand proclaim. But they did it. The fact that they alone sought to investigate an evil in order to mete out discipline and protect other congregations does not matter.
They can ‘reform’ in the eyes of the reasonable world, and likely have done so even now, with various tweaks culminating in that May 2019 issue. But they will never ever reform enough in the eyes of their virulent detractors. At some point, perhaps they will take on detractors more openly—judiciously, and not so as to satisfy the detractors, which cannot be done, but to offer a defense of the Christian way to those whose ear the detractors have gained. This is what you want to be writing your books about, Greg Stafford, not arguing over the Trinity.
In other words, the things that detractors paint as sordid are exactly the traps that well-intentioned and imperfect people who are ‘insular’ (no part of the world) could be expected to fall into. We’ll learn, where necessary, to present the truth through this facet so easily spun as a negative. 
It is the same with disfellowshipping, which opposers (many of them disfellowshipped themselves) have made into a monster issue, and in this age where ‘victimization’ is all the rage, have thrust it into the public eye. Keep it there where it belongs. Don’t try to skulk away from it.
Jehovah’s Witnesses are a faith that adherents take seriously. If you don’t participate, even if you stop, that does not create ripples. If you turn 180 degrees and flame what your family holds most dear, that probably will. The scriptures “tell” congregation members what to do in that event. Leadership merely alerts to those scriptures & afterwards their job is done. It could be tweaked—has been already— but any competent leadership would know of the same verses & principles behind them. Most people will have little difficulty in accepting that if you persistently by word or deed refuse to conform to the standards of any group, you may find yourself out on your ear.
The malcontents who carry on that ‘if it is not perfect, it is filthy’ would not have lasted two minutes in the first century. They would have honed in on the ill doings of those Revelation 2 and 3 congregations and started screaming back then just as they are screaming now. 
And if they would not have lasted two minutes during the early days of the Christian congregation, they would not have lasted two seconds in the early days of the Jewish nation. Yes, yes, there are some things that are not exactly the same. But the similarities far outnumber the differences.
 
 
 

@JOHN BUTLER, for all his nuttiness, is not a warlike person and does not follow war commentaries. 
If he did, he might point to the widely held British view that, with good guys and bad guys apparent from Day 1, the Americans hid their bodies and blood, cowered behind their fire and steel, allowed the Brits to be slaughtered wholesale, and only then, when they saw that it would not be enough, did they deign to lift a finger.
In both wars, supplying armaments to the Brits, though being too chicken to do anything more, they eventually drew attacks from the enemy determined to stop the flow, and only then did they reluctantly conclude that they could no longer let Britain do all the bloodletting.
If you are going to go Captain America on all of us here, you should at least modify your chest-thumping with these observations.

This is apocryphal but I think true, since there are not many degrees of separation:
Many years ago waiting for the pioneer meeting to get underway, some of us young pioneers started commenting on nightmare scenarios—like witnessing to super-patriot John Wayne. He probably would sic his Rottweilers on us!
The circuit overseer interjected that it was not so. In a circuit he had once served, a brother had called upon John Wayne, who could not have been more kind or more respectful, even saying that he knew that what they had was true, but that he would never be able to live up to it.
Now (and this is my speculation years later) where could he have gotten such a good impression of Jehovah’s Witnesses?
”I played in a movie called Ring of Fear …..This was where I got the Jag. The guy wrote and directed the picture had problems, but John Wayne who produced it, never gave up on his friends. Duke was having a bad time, going through a divorce, and they needed to fix the script. So they're thinking who could do it, and someone says, Spillane's a writer, he could do it. Now I'm playing ME in the picture, for pete's sake. They called me up in Newburgh on Wednesday, I'm already back home across the country, and said come back and fix it. So I took my Wagner records, flew West, and worked Friday, Saturday, Sunday. They set me up in a beautiful hotel suite, and I worked. …..And they wanta pay me for the script but I won't take nothing for that, it was a favour. But Duke says, 'he was looking at those Jags in the lot next to the Cock and Bull'. One night, I'm back in Newburgh, it's snowing, and out in front of my house is this beautiful Jag with a red ribbon around it, and a note that says 'Thanks, Duke'.” - Mickey Spillane
 
 

Ha! That explains everything! No wonder I had problems with Google translating some words (as I posted in a topic on the "JW's Only" club) it didn't want me to find the truth!!!!!

Yes. 
But there is absolutely  nothing wrong with your wife approaching your daughter with concerns about this 'brother', as suggested by TTH: