TrueTomHarley

It took a while for me to realize that, among some branches of Christians, there is virtue in ‘moving beyond’ the Bible. Most Witnesses will assume that if they can demonstrate they are adhering to the Bible, they’re golden. Those other church people will hang their heads sheepishly. Or they will argue that something is not translated accurately, or interpreted accurately, or that it applied to a specific and temporary situation. Instead, ‘progressive’ Christians take pride in moving beyond the Bible. It is not a misunderstanding for them. It is deliberate. They will even look upon you pityingly for still practicing ‘primitive’ Christianity, as though a spiritual Neanderthal who should have evolved with the times, but hasn’t.
The expression ‘primitive Christianity’—‘scholars’ will say that Jehovah's Witnesses practice it. We take it as a compliment, but it is actually an insult. It may not be intended as an insult, but the terminology itself is coined by those who view matters that way. In any other context, would you be flattered by being described as ‘primitive?’ Moreover, who would ever do it other than someone thoroughly steeped in evolution? Their philosophical view spill over into everything else. Humans evolved from the caveman. So should you, in their view. Grow up from your ‘caveman’ religion.
Anyone seeking to adhere to the Bible as written will be described today as a ‘cult.’ This is certainly true of Jehovah’s Witnesses, but it is also true of ‘fundamentalist’ faiths which, in their own eyes, at least, are also adhering to the Bible. The branches of Christianity that are progressive, that ‘keep up’ with the times, that do not make a fuss about the morality it deems outdated, is never described that way.
The criteria for cult classification used to be: if you fell under the spell of a charismatic leader, withdrew from society, and began doing strange things, you just might be a member of a cult. By this definition, JWs are not a cult. Their leaders are anything but charismatic—some are an acquired taste to listen to. They don’t withdraw from life, but continue in work, school, and the greater community. Do they do ‘strange things?’ It’s in the eye of the beholder, I suppose, but there was a time when speaking about one’s faith was not considered overly strange. They are not a cult by the old standard.
By the new one, the BITE one that revolves around various forms of ‘undue influence,’ they are—but so is the Bible, since those forms of ‘influence’ are no more than attempts to carry out what was clearly written as policy for the first-century congregation. The real question is, ‘Is it such a horrid thing to be in such a ‘cult’ if that is exactly what the Bible advises? Or is it more horrid to insist upon ‘freedom of mind’ to the nth degree, as is typical today in the West? Look at the world such ‘freedom of mind’ has collectively produced—it can be argued that such ‘freedom’ does not serve humanity well.
Witnesses will say that we need some ‘authority’ that is more than collective popular opinion, and so they put themselves where such authority exists. What we need is authority that reflects godly thinking and not just evolving human wisdom. Plainly, there will be some flaws in such authority, since everything humans touch is flawed. ‘We have this treasure [of the ministry] in earthen vessels [us—with all our imperfections] the NT writer advises. But when Christians cast off such authority in favor of something, say, more democratic in nature, they presently become almost indistinguishable from the evolving and declining standards of the greater world.
Students of the 60s taunted police by calling them PIGS, doubling down when they saw it got under their skin. In time, one innovative officer responded with: PIGS—Pride, Integrity, Guts, Service. Why not do the same with CULT when applied to Jehovah’s Witnesses. CULT—Courage, Unity, Love, Truth. Let persons insist upon their ‘freedom of mind.’ They end up missing the greatest freedom of all: freedom from sin and its resulting death.
The latest manifestation of that ‘freedom of mind’ obsession? An article about the decreasing popularity of religion (any religion, not just JW) among the young. “They. Really. Don’t. Like. Organized. Religion.” it states. That sentence (if it is one) says it all. I know the following in symbolic, but as symbolism goes, it doesn’t get any better. Todays ‘freedom of mind’ people are so fiercely independent they can’t even stand for words to be organized properly, lest one unduly influence another.
You organize to get things done. If you don’t care about getting things done, you don’t organize. To spread the news of God’s Kingdom worldwide in a way that does not quickly devolve into a quagmire of individual opinion seems to Jehovah’s Witnesses a project worth organizing for. So they do. And they put up with how in any organization, ‘you can’t always get what you want’ even as they at the same time reap the benefits of organization.

It took a while for me to realize that, among some branches of Christians, there is virtue in ‘moving beyond’ the Bible. Most Witnesses will assume that if they can demonstrate they are adhering to the Bible, they’re golden. Those other church people will hang their heads sheepishly. Or they will argue that something is not translated accurately, or interpreted accurately, or that it applied to a specific and temporary situation. Instead, ‘progressive’ Christians take pride in moving beyond the Bible. It is not a misunderstanding for them. It is deliberate. They will even look upon you pityingly for still practicing ‘primitive’ Christianity, as though a spiritual Neanderthal who should have evolved with the times, but hasn’t.
The expression ‘primitive Christianity’—‘scholars’ will say that Jehovah's Witnesses practice it. We take it as a compliment, but it is actually an insult. It may not be intended as an insult, but the terminology itself is coined by those who view matters that way. In any other context, would you be flattered by being described as ‘primitive?’ Moreover, who would ever do it other than someone thoroughly steeped in evolution? Their philosophical view spill over into everything else. Humans evolved from the caveman. So should you, in their view. Grow up from your ‘caveman’ religion.
Anyone seeking to adhere to the Bible as written will be described today as a ‘cult.’ This is certainly true of Jehovah’s Witnesses, but it is also true of ‘fundamentalist’ faiths which, in their own eyes, at least, are also adhering to the Bible. The branches of Christianity that are progressive, that ‘keep up’ with the times, that do not make a fuss about the morality it deems outdated, is never described that way.
The criteria for cult classification used to be: if you fell under the spell of a charismatic leader, withdrew from society, and began doing strange things, you just might be a member of a cult. By this definition, JWs are not a cult. Their leaders are anything but charismatic—some are an acquired taste to listen to. They don’t withdraw from life, but continue in work, school, and the greater community. Do they do ‘strange things?’ It’s in the eye of the beholder, I suppose, but there was a time when speaking about one’s faith was not considered overly strange. They are not a cult by the old standard.
By the new one, the BITE one that revolves around various forms of ‘undue influence,’ they are—but so is the Bible, since those forms of ‘influence’ are no more than attempts to carry out what was clearly written as policy for the first-century congregation. The real question is, ‘Is it such a horrid thing to be in such a ‘cult’ if that is exactly what the Bible advises? Or is it more horrid to insist upon ‘freedom of mind’ to the nth degree, as is typical today in the West? Look at the world such ‘freedom of mind’ has collectively produced—it can be argued that such ‘freedom’ does not serve humanity well.
Witnesses will say that we need some ‘authority’ that is more than collective popular opinion, and so they put themselves where such authority exists. What we need is authority that reflects godly thinking and not just evolving human wisdom. Plainly, there will be some flaws in such authority, since everything humans touch is flawed. ‘We have this treasure [of the ministry] in earthen vessels [us—with all our imperfections] the NT writer advises. But when Christians cast off such authority in favor of something, say, more democratic in nature, they presently become almost indistinguishable from the evolving and declining standards of the greater world.
Students of the 60s taunted police by calling them PIGS, doubling down when they saw it got under their skin. In time, one innovative officer responded with: PIGS—Pride, Integrity, Guts, Service. Why not do the same with CULT when applied to Jehovah’s Witnesses. CULT—Courage, Unity, Love, Truth. Let persons insist upon their ‘freedom of mind.’ They end up missing the greatest freedom of all: freedom from sin and its resulting death.
The latest manifestation of that ‘freedom of mind’ obsession? An article about the decreasing popularity of religion (any religion, not just JW) among the young. “They. Really. Don’t. Like. Organized. Religion.” it states. That sentence (if it is one) says it all. I know the following in symbolic, but as symbolism goes, it doesn’t get any better. Todays ‘freedom of mind’ people are so fiercely independent they can’t even stand for words to be organized properly, lest one unduly influence another.
You organize to get things done. If you don’t care about getting things done, you don’t organize. To spread the news of God’s Kingdom worldwide in a way that does not quickly devolve into a quagmire of individual opinion seems to Jehovah’s Witnesses a project worth organizing for. So they do. And they put up with how in any organization, ‘you can’t always get what you want’ even as they at the same time reap the benefits of organization.

Just to show @Thinkingthat we are thoroughly attuned to ‘down under,’ here are some pictures we took at the Columbus Zoo:


No. He is probably more like this guy:

To the extent that is true it would appear that I am the blockhead.

Well—had you put it that way in the first place . . .

“What do you say, you fornicating punk? Ya feeling lucky today?”

You blockhead. I mean, Duh, if anyone discards belief in God they necessarily focus on only the inconveniences of being Christian in the present system, which no Witness would ever deny there are some, but they are compensated by realities to come.
If there really is a God, and if there really will be a new system in which He rules unopposed, then he will enforce his own standards. Just like during that circuit assembly in the early 70’s in which two resurrected ones were bellyaching over everything under the sun, impervious to the correction that the loving elders (who weren’t packing guns) were pouring on like syrup, then the lights went out, there was a loud zap and a flash from heaven, and they were gone! Oh, yeah—a ‘dramatization’ it was.

Well—had you put it that way in the first place . . .

You blockhead. I mean, Duh, if anyone discards belief in God they necessarily focus on only the inconveniences of being Christian in the present system, which no Witness would ever deny there are some, but they are compensated by realities to come.
If there really is a God, and if there really will be a new system in which He rules unopposed, then he will enforce his own standards. Just like during that circuit assembly in the early 70’s in which two resurrected ones were bellyaching over everything under the sun, impervious to the correction that the loving elders (who weren’t packing guns) were pouring on like syrup, then the lights went out, there was a loud zap and a flash from heaven, and they were gone! Oh, yeah—a ‘dramatization’ it was.

I can ride with witty good humored sarcasm every time...

Well—had you put it that way in the first place . . .

“What do you say, you fornicating punk? Ya feeling lucky today?”

You blockhead. I mean, Duh, if anyone discards belief in God they necessarily focus on only the inconveniences of being Christian in the present system, which no Witness would ever deny there are some, but they are compensated by realities to come.
If there really is a God, and if there really will be a new system in which He rules unopposed, then he will enforce his own standards. Just like during that circuit assembly in the early 70’s in which two resurrected ones were bellyaching over everything under the sun, impervious to the correction that the loving elders (who weren’t packing guns) were pouring on like syrup, then the lights went out, there was a loud zap and a flash from heaven, and they were gone! Oh, yeah—a ‘dramatization’ it was.

Well, there’s plenty in Australia worth fighting for, like this guy:

Be honest. Doesn’t this remind you of Pudgy awakening from a nap?
I dunno. I think of that verse where Jesus said God hides things from the wise and intellectual, while revealing them to babes. Can a babe understand the above? I’m not sure I can myself.
 

It is well not to describe religous interpretations as ‘lies’ when they cannot immediately be identified as such. With your patience—and you are certainly a patient and tenacious fellow—let me try to develop a point: 
Congregations are lately covering the Book of Job. Here, Job is giving his testimony: “Let God weigh me with accurate scales; Then he will recognize my integrity.” (Job 31:6)
His life course is one of integrity toward God. If it was not, downfall would be justified, he believes, but it has been
“If my footsteps deviate from the way Or my heart has followed after my eyes Or my hands have been defiled, … If my heart has been enticed by a woman And I have lain in wait at my neighbor’s door, … If I denied justice to my male or female servants When they had a complaint against me, … If I refused to give the poor what they desired Or saddened the eyes of the widow; If I ate my portion of food alone Without sharing it with the orphans;… If I saw anyone perishing for lack of clothing Or a poor man with nothing to cover himself; … If I shook my fist against the orphan When he needed my assistance in the city gate; … If I put my confidence in gold Or said to fine gold, ‘You are my security!’ If I found my joy in my great wealth Because of the many possessions I acquired;” (31: 7-25)
All those things would be bad, meriting God’s disfavor, he believes, but he never did any of them!
“Have I ever rejoiced over the destruction of my enemy Or gloated because evil befell him?  I never allowed my mouth to sin. . . Have the men of my tent not said, ‘Who can find anyone who has not been satisfied with his food?’ No stranger had to spend the night outside; I opened my doors to the traveler. Have I ever tried to cover over my transgressions, like other men, By hiding my error in the pocket of my garment?” Have I been in fear of the reaction of the multitude, Or have I been terrified by the contempt of other families, Making me silent and afraid to go outside?”  (29-34) No, his life is not characterized by any of those things.
It is his testimony. He has always been upright. He’s ready to sign it: “I would sign my name to what I have said.” (31:35)
It is all peremptorily denied by his three interrogators: 
Eliphaz: Is [your suffering] not because your own wickedness is so great And there is no end to your errors? For you seize a pledge from your brothers for no reason, And you strip people of their garments, leaving them naked. You do not give the tired one a drink of water, And you hold back food from the hungry. The land belongs to the powerful man, And the favored one dwells in it. But you sent away widows empty-handed, And you crushed the arms of fatherless children. That is why you are surrounded by traps, And sudden terrors frighten you;  (Job 22:5-10)
Why does he reject Job’s testimony, instead charging just the opposite? Because it conflicts with his own ‘theology:’ “What I have seen,” Eliphaz says previously, “is that those who plow what is harmful And those who sow trouble will reap the same. By the breath of God they perish, And through a blast of his anger they come to an end. . . . Even the teeth of strong lions are broken.”  (Job 4:8-10)
His preformed—faulty, as it turns out—theology tells him Job must have been ‘plowing what is harmful’ for him to be suffering now. Job, who otherwise might have agreed with that theology, undergoes the worst of spiritual crises to accompany his crisis on all other fronts, because he knows he has not been ‘plowing what is harmful’—quite the contrary. So he works out his angst by blaming God for being both cruel and unfair. This further inflames Eliphaz and crew, already riled that Job is resisting their ‘correction.’ Now they read  false positive for apostasy and figure they must attack Job for that reason, too. Presently they are all but hurling epithets at the poor fellow.
Before chalking up the above to the oddities of religious people (or applying them to Witness HQ), reflect that all of society is that way. If you have benefited from acupuncture, say, and want to tell the world about it, you will find yourself derided among the materialist crowd for advocating ‘pseudoscience.’ What about your own beneficial experience, you will ask. ‘It will be attributed to ‘anecdotal evidence,’ inherently unreliable. It doesn’t matter how many like testimonies you can gather; it will all be attributed to ‘anecdotal evidence’ by those whose scientific ‘theology’ admits to no other view—they can’t replicate your experience in their test tubes, so they assume you are either deluded or lying. Mechanisms may differ, but the overall pattern is no different than Job’s ‘anecdotal evidence’ rejected by those of a different theology.
You can go along with the airy dismissal of ‘anecdotal evidence.’ Then one day you find it is your evidence they are trying to dismiss and you wonder how people can be so high-handed and stubborn.

Within the Christian tradition, there is nothing inconsistent about these two statements. Except for a few scattered early mentions—no more than mentions—in early history, there is no place in which one can learn of Christianity but the Bible.
The ‘lies’ and ‘false teachings’ of the vast bulk of Christendom can immediately be identified as such. That the ‘soul’ is mortal and dies when the person dies, that with a single exception, ‘hell’ come from one of three original language words, none of which mean eternal suffering. That Jesus’s followers should be ‘no part of the world,’ whereas most Christian churches are fully part of the world—that God is not one-in-three persons, that the grand overall theme of the Bible is not, ‘be good, so you will go to heaven when you die,’—these teachings can be instantly identified by scripture as ‘false.’
Such ‘false’ religious teaching unfailingly paint those who espouse them into outrageous moral corners—such as ‘comforting’ bereaved parents that the reason their baby died was that God needed another angel in his garden, which is why he picked the very best—your child.
Most of the main teachings of churches are not found in the Bible. It is the attempt to read them in that causes persons to throw up their hands in frustration and even disgust. Deprived of nourishment, flooded with junk spiritual food, inquiring minds are left to scavenge elsewhere. Some settle for atheism, some for agnosticism, some settle on churches that pay scant attention to biblical things in favor of a social gospel, even a political one.
So, they are not just lies. They are harmful lies. They are lies that are near-universal in the church world. The GB has mounted a successful sustained, and worldwide assault on them. To ignore this and instead flail away about mistakes they may or may not have made is astoundingly small-minded to me.

Within the Christian tradition, there is nothing inconsistent about these two statements. Except for a few scattered early mentions—no more than mentions—in early history, there is no place in which one can learn of Christianity but the Bible.
The ‘lies’ and ‘false teachings’ of the vast bulk of Christendom can immediately be identified as such. That the ‘soul’ is mortal and dies when the person dies, that with a single exception, ‘hell’ come from one of three original language words, none of which mean eternal suffering. That Jesus’s followers should be ‘no part of the world,’ whereas most Christian churches are fully part of the world—that God is not one-in-three persons, that the grand overall theme of the Bible is not, ‘be good, so you will go to heaven when you die,’—these teachings can be instantly identified by scripture as ‘false.’
Such ‘false’ religious teaching unfailingly paint those who espouse them into outrageous moral corners—such as ‘comforting’ bereaved parents that the reason their baby died was that God needed another angel in his garden, which is why he picked the very best—your child.
Most of the main teachings of churches are not found in the Bible. It is the attempt to read them in that causes persons to throw up their hands in frustration and even disgust. Deprived of nourishment, flooded with junk spiritual food, inquiring minds are left to scavenge elsewhere. Some settle for atheism, some for agnosticism, some settle on churches that pay scant attention to biblical things in favor of a social gospel, even a political one.
So, they are not just lies. They are harmful lies. They are lies that are near-universal in the church world. The GB has mounted a successful sustained, and worldwide assault on them. To ignore this and instead flail away about mistakes they may or may not have made is astoundingly small-minded to me.

It is well not to describe religous interpretations as ‘lies’ when they cannot immediately be identified as such. With your patience—and you are certainly a patient and tenacious fellow—let me try to develop a point: 
Congregations are lately covering the Book of Job. Here, Job is giving his testimony: “Let God weigh me with accurate scales; Then he will recognize my integrity.” (Job 31:6)
His life course is one of integrity toward God. If it was not, downfall would be justified, he believes, but it has been
“If my footsteps deviate from the way Or my heart has followed after my eyes Or my hands have been defiled, … If my heart has been enticed by a woman And I have lain in wait at my neighbor’s door, … If I denied justice to my male or female servants When they had a complaint against me, … If I refused to give the poor what they desired Or saddened the eyes of the widow; If I ate my portion of food alone Without sharing it with the orphans;… If I saw anyone perishing for lack of clothing Or a poor man with nothing to cover himself; … If I shook my fist against the orphan When he needed my assistance in the city gate; … If I put my confidence in gold Or said to fine gold, ‘You are my security!’ If I found my joy in my great wealth Because of the many possessions I acquired;” (31: 7-25)
All those things would be bad, meriting God’s disfavor, he believes, but he never did any of them!
“Have I ever rejoiced over the destruction of my enemy Or gloated because evil befell him?  I never allowed my mouth to sin. . . Have the men of my tent not said, ‘Who can find anyone who has not been satisfied with his food?’ No stranger had to spend the night outside; I opened my doors to the traveler. Have I ever tried to cover over my transgressions, like other men, By hiding my error in the pocket of my garment?” Have I been in fear of the reaction of the multitude, Or have I been terrified by the contempt of other families, Making me silent and afraid to go outside?”  (29-34) No, his life is not characterized by any of those things.
It is his testimony. He has always been upright. He’s ready to sign it: “I would sign my name to what I have said.” (31:35)
It is all peremptorily denied by his three interrogators: 
Eliphaz: Is [your suffering] not because your own wickedness is so great And there is no end to your errors? For you seize a pledge from your brothers for no reason, And you strip people of their garments, leaving them naked. You do not give the tired one a drink of water, And you hold back food from the hungry. The land belongs to the powerful man, And the favored one dwells in it. But you sent away widows empty-handed, And you crushed the arms of fatherless children. That is why you are surrounded by traps, And sudden terrors frighten you;  (Job 22:5-10)
Why does he reject Job’s testimony, instead charging just the opposite? Because it conflicts with his own ‘theology:’ “What I have seen,” Eliphaz says previously, “is that those who plow what is harmful And those who sow trouble will reap the same. By the breath of God they perish, And through a blast of his anger they come to an end. . . . Even the teeth of strong lions are broken.”  (Job 4:8-10)
His preformed—faulty, as it turns out—theology tells him Job must have been ‘plowing what is harmful’ for him to be suffering now. Job, who otherwise might have agreed with that theology, undergoes the worst of spiritual crises to accompany his crisis on all other fronts, because he knows he has not been ‘plowing what is harmful’—quite the contrary. So he works out his angst by blaming God for being both cruel and unfair. This further inflames Eliphaz and crew, already riled that Job is resisting their ‘correction.’ Now they read  false positive for apostasy and figure they must attack Job for that reason, too. Presently they are all but hurling epithets at the poor fellow.
Before chalking up the above to the oddities of religious people (or applying them to Witness HQ), reflect that all of society is that way. If you have benefited from acupuncture, say, and want to tell the world about it, you will find yourself derided among the materialist crowd for advocating ‘pseudoscience.’ What about your own beneficial experience, you will ask. ‘It will be attributed to ‘anecdotal evidence,’ inherently unreliable. It doesn’t matter how many like testimonies you can gather; it will all be attributed to ‘anecdotal evidence’ by those whose scientific ‘theology’ admits to no other view—they can’t replicate your experience in their test tubes, so they assume you are either deluded or lying. Mechanisms may differ, but the overall pattern is no different than Job’s ‘anecdotal evidence’ rejected by those of a different theology.
You can go along with the airy dismissal of ‘anecdotal evidence.’ Then one day you find it is your evidence they are trying to dismiss and you wonder how people can be so high-handed and stubborn.

It is well not to describe religous interpretations as ‘lies’ when they cannot immediately be identified as such. With your patience—and you are certainly a patient and tenacious fellow—let me try to develop a point: 
Congregations are lately covering the Book of Job. Here, Job is giving his testimony: “Let God weigh me with accurate scales; Then he will recognize my integrity.” (Job 31:6)
His life course is one of integrity toward God. If it was not, downfall would be justified, he believes, but it has been
“If my footsteps deviate from the way Or my heart has followed after my eyes Or my hands have been defiled, … If my heart has been enticed by a woman And I have lain in wait at my neighbor’s door, … If I denied justice to my male or female servants When they had a complaint against me, … If I refused to give the poor what they desired Or saddened the eyes of the widow; If I ate my portion of food alone Without sharing it with the orphans;… If I saw anyone perishing for lack of clothing Or a poor man with nothing to cover himself; … If I shook my fist against the orphan When he needed my assistance in the city gate; … If I put my confidence in gold Or said to fine gold, ‘You are my security!’ If I found my joy in my great wealth Because of the many possessions I acquired;” (31: 7-25)
All those things would be bad, meriting God’s disfavor, he believes, but he never did any of them!
“Have I ever rejoiced over the destruction of my enemy Or gloated because evil befell him?  I never allowed my mouth to sin. . . Have the men of my tent not said, ‘Who can find anyone who has not been satisfied with his food?’ No stranger had to spend the night outside; I opened my doors to the traveler. Have I ever tried to cover over my transgressions, like other men, By hiding my error in the pocket of my garment?” Have I been in fear of the reaction of the multitude, Or have I been terrified by the contempt of other families, Making me silent and afraid to go outside?”  (29-34) No, his life is not characterized by any of those things.
It is his testimony. He has always been upright. He’s ready to sign it: “I would sign my name to what I have said.” (31:35)
It is all peremptorily denied by his three interrogators: 
Eliphaz: Is [your suffering] not because your own wickedness is so great And there is no end to your errors? For you seize a pledge from your brothers for no reason, And you strip people of their garments, leaving them naked. You do not give the tired one a drink of water, And you hold back food from the hungry. The land belongs to the powerful man, And the favored one dwells in it. But you sent away widows empty-handed, And you crushed the arms of fatherless children. That is why you are surrounded by traps, And sudden terrors frighten you;  (Job 22:5-10)
Why does he reject Job’s testimony, instead charging just the opposite? Because it conflicts with his own ‘theology:’ “What I have seen,” Eliphaz says previously, “is that those who plow what is harmful And those who sow trouble will reap the same. By the breath of God they perish, And through a blast of his anger they come to an end. . . . Even the teeth of strong lions are broken.”  (Job 4:8-10)
His preformed—faulty, as it turns out—theology tells him Job must have been ‘plowing what is harmful’ for him to be suffering now. Job, who otherwise might have agreed with that theology, undergoes the worst of spiritual crises to accompany his crisis on all other fronts, because he knows he has not been ‘plowing what is harmful’—quite the contrary. So he works out his angst by blaming God for being both cruel and unfair. This further inflames Eliphaz and crew, already riled that Job is resisting their ‘correction.’ Now they read  false positive for apostasy and figure they must attack Job for that reason, too. Presently they are all but hurling epithets at the poor fellow.
Before chalking up the above to the oddities of religious people (or applying them to Witness HQ), reflect that all of society is that way. If you have benefited from acupuncture, say, and want to tell the world about it, you will find yourself derided among the materialist crowd for advocating ‘pseudoscience.’ What about your own beneficial experience, you will ask. ‘It will be attributed to ‘anecdotal evidence,’ inherently unreliable. It doesn’t matter how many like testimonies you can gather; it will all be attributed to ‘anecdotal evidence’ by those whose scientific ‘theology’ admits to no other view—they can’t replicate your experience in their test tubes, so they assume you are either deluded or lying. Mechanisms may differ, but the overall pattern is no different than Job’s ‘anecdotal evidence’ rejected by those of a different theology.
You can go along with the airy dismissal of ‘anecdotal evidence.’ Then one day you find it is your evidence they are trying to dismiss and you wonder how people can be so high-handed and stubborn.

It is well not to describe religous interpretations as ‘lies’ when they cannot immediately be identified as such. With your patience—and you are certainly a patient and tenacious fellow—let me try to develop a point: 
Congregations are lately covering the Book of Job. Here, Job is giving his testimony: “Let God weigh me with accurate scales; Then he will recognize my integrity.” (Job 31:6)
His life course is one of integrity toward God. If it was not, downfall would be justified, he believes, but it has been
“If my footsteps deviate from the way Or my heart has followed after my eyes Or my hands have been defiled, … If my heart has been enticed by a woman And I have lain in wait at my neighbor’s door, … If I denied justice to my male or female servants When they had a complaint against me, … If I refused to give the poor what they desired Or saddened the eyes of the widow; If I ate my portion of food alone Without sharing it with the orphans;… If I saw anyone perishing for lack of clothing Or a poor man with nothing to cover himself; … If I shook my fist against the orphan When he needed my assistance in the city gate; … If I put my confidence in gold Or said to fine gold, ‘You are my security!’ If I found my joy in my great wealth Because of the many possessions I acquired;” (31: 7-25)
All those things would be bad, meriting God’s disfavor, he believes, but he never did any of them!
“Have I ever rejoiced over the destruction of my enemy Or gloated because evil befell him?  I never allowed my mouth to sin. . . Have the men of my tent not said, ‘Who can find anyone who has not been satisfied with his food?’ No stranger had to spend the night outside; I opened my doors to the traveler. Have I ever tried to cover over my transgressions, like other men, By hiding my error in the pocket of my garment?” Have I been in fear of the reaction of the multitude, Or have I been terrified by the contempt of other families, Making me silent and afraid to go outside?”  (29-34) No, his life is not characterized by any of those things.
It is his testimony. He has always been upright. He’s ready to sign it: “I would sign my name to what I have said.” (31:35)
It is all peremptorily denied by his three interrogators: 
Eliphaz: Is [your suffering] not because your own wickedness is so great And there is no end to your errors? For you seize a pledge from your brothers for no reason, And you strip people of their garments, leaving them naked. You do not give the tired one a drink of water, And you hold back food from the hungry. The land belongs to the powerful man, And the favored one dwells in it. But you sent away widows empty-handed, And you crushed the arms of fatherless children. That is why you are surrounded by traps, And sudden terrors frighten you;  (Job 22:5-10)
Why does he reject Job’s testimony, instead charging just the opposite? Because it conflicts with his own ‘theology:’ “What I have seen,” Eliphaz says previously, “is that those who plow what is harmful And those who sow trouble will reap the same. By the breath of God they perish, And through a blast of his anger they come to an end. . . . Even the teeth of strong lions are broken.”  (Job 4:8-10)
His preformed—faulty, as it turns out—theology tells him Job must have been ‘plowing what is harmful’ for him to be suffering now. Job, who otherwise might have agreed with that theology, undergoes the worst of spiritual crises to accompany his crisis on all other fronts, because he knows he has not been ‘plowing what is harmful’—quite the contrary. So he works out his angst by blaming God for being both cruel and unfair. This further inflames Eliphaz and crew, already riled that Job is resisting their ‘correction.’ Now they read  false positive for apostasy and figure they must attack Job for that reason, too. Presently they are all but hurling epithets at the poor fellow.
Before chalking up the above to the oddities of religious people (or applying them to Witness HQ), reflect that all of society is that way. If you have benefited from acupuncture, say, and want to tell the world about it, you will find yourself derided among the materialist crowd for advocating ‘pseudoscience.’ What about your own beneficial experience, you will ask. ‘It will be attributed to ‘anecdotal evidence,’ inherently unreliable. It doesn’t matter how many like testimonies you can gather; it will all be attributed to ‘anecdotal evidence’ by those whose scientific ‘theology’ admits to no other view—they can’t replicate your experience in their test tubes, so they assume you are either deluded or lying. Mechanisms may differ, but the overall pattern is no different than Job’s ‘anecdotal evidence’ rejected by those of a different theology.
You can go along with the airy dismissal of ‘anecdotal evidence.’ Then one day you find it is your evidence they are trying to dismiss and you wonder how people can be so high-handed and stubborn.

“not sure what you read as a typo”
Maybe the penman had a close relationship with Jesus.

“not sure what you read as a typo”
Maybe the penman had a close relationship with Jesus.

Chinese society is its own special crossroad of dictatorial governance, wealth, societal development, information access and technology. Not too long ago a group I was with were laughing out loud because huge billboard sized photos of us were broadcasted near the intersection we had just j-walked. It was an instance of trying to shame us into using crosswalks. Later that day a hotel staffer approached us about the violation. Facial recognition had IDed us and authorities located our accommodation and instructed staff to straighten us out. Real 1984ish stuff! 

@Many Miles @JW Insider I'm hesitant with any explanation that uses or is very close to some type of deconstruction by way of psychological analysis (fear of schism). I think we can simply observe the factors or reasons(theological) the Congregation has already given/offers/claims to be the cause. I lean in this case towards a philosophical error of judgment.🙏
I'm just going to use the same term (uniformity) with a different definition. I agree that the unity to which Christ calls us in John 17 is not an all encompassing unity that includes or conflates within itself evil and sin. Rather, is a unity in faith, worship and hierarchy. 
I'm sure you would agree that uniformity is not bad when it's uniformity in the one faith. In that case it's actually something beautiful (Ephesians 4:5, 1 Corinthians 1:10) It seems your concern is with the extreme of absolute uniformity. I'm concerned about the other extreme, which is the absence of a shared faith. So, we are both interested in reaching a middle position (diversity within unity), where the teachings of the organization set the boundaries for our unity, providing a framework within which we can respectfully explore different understandings of our faith. In other words, that what the Congregation requires be only uniformity of truth. 
You reminded me of one of Pope's Francis Homily's in 2014: 
"It is true that the Holy Spirit brings forth different charisms in the Church, which at first glance, may seem to create disorder. Under his guidance, however, they constitute an immense richness, because the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of unity, which is not the same thing as uniformity. Only the Holy Spirit is able to kindle diversity, multiplicity and, at the same time, bring about unity. When we try to create diversity, but are closed within our own particular and exclusive ways of seeing things, we create division. When we try to create unity through our own human designs, we end up with uniformity and homogenization. If we let ourselves be led by the Spirit, however, richness, variety and diversity will never create conflict, because the Spirit spurs us to experience variety in the communion of the Church."
I am wondering what you think the sort of unity Christ prays (in John 17) His followers would have, would look like? I mean, what is the nature of that unity Christ wants His Congregation to have? Is it doctrinal agreement? Only on essentials? How are those determined?  Does it include institutional unity? That's the first set of questions. How is that first set of questions even to be answered? By consensus? Majority vote? Who gets to participate and vote? Who gets to supervise and moderate and make the rules? What would be necessary even for there to be an agreement about how to answer that first set of questions? And if by long and knock down public debate we finally did somehow manage to come to an agreement regarding the answers to those questions, how would we possibly go about achieving that unity (whatever the sort of unity is that we agreed that Christ wants His Congregation to have)? Reading through this whole discussion, it seems to me that if Christ intended His Congregation to be one (so unified that it would testify to the world that the Father sent the Son), then He would not have left us in a kind of each man does what is right in his own eyes situation. He would not have left the unity of His Bride up to the power of combox arguments to bring unity out of the chaos of sheep without a shepherd. The whole discussion above is evidence of the impotence of such arguments. Without a unified ecclesial authority established by Christ, the prospects for even getting some sort of robust visible unity off the ground, let alone preserving it till Christ returns, look extremely bleak! So either there is no point striving for robust visible unity (and we can gloss John 17 in some watered-down way), or the question is not, is it morally wrong to associate oneself with a Christian body that teaches anything whatsoever that is doctrinally false?  but rather, where is the Congregation that Christ established, and what does it have to say about all these questions?

I think you alluded to the diversity without divisions point,  on this post:
I'm familiar with the old principle/quote "In essentials unity, in non-essentials freedom, in all things love". The problem arises once we get to what is the basis/criteria for distinguishing between schisms and heresies. If there is no ground for distinction, this type of unity collapses into individualism and/or arbitrarily sets up a standard of unity (agreement on a indeterminate set of doctrinal propositions) and with finding a lowest common denominator minimalism like the Mere Christianity position or (like Greg Stafford's three fundamentals of the faith) as the ground for unity.
Either way, the result is a unity/uniformity, but it is only a uniformity of like minded individuals, which is not a criterion that establishes that what is believed by the like minded individuals is, in fact, the truth. Uniformity of belief could mean nothing more than a bunch of like minded individuals confess what is false teachings.
You reminded me of previous comment by @TrueTomHarley which made me consider the difference between the unity of a political party, and the unity of a family. The political party is united by a shared set of beliefs, planks in a platform. When the party’s position shifts sufficiently, or the individual voter shifts positions, the voter just shifts parties because the unity is that of shared beliefs. It is not a material unity like family (united by blood) but more like a formal unity.
Let me follow up tonight with the first comment of this thread below:

It seems like if we are going to do overstepping headship, we should criticize Aaron for not going all the way and saying to God, ‘Oh, come on! After all he’s done? It was just a little loss of temper, and goodness knows, they had it coming!’
That is the sentiment most of us have to come to grips with upon reading the account. Aaron was human. Would he not have had to come to grips with it too?
The trouble with overstepping headship is that people don’t have the judgment to know when to do it. For every ‘proper’ time they do it, there are 5 improper times.