ComfortMyPeople

What gets me is when we keep going on about obeying instructions in order to survive Armageddon. This weekends WT study mentioned it agaiin....comparing the GB to Joshuah and Zerubabel. (Otherwise the study was very good). "Sometimes God’s people received direction that did not appear to be practical from a human standpoint but turned out to be lifesaving". 
The WT gave a couple of current examples....just stopping short of mentioning getting vaccinated against covid (thank goodness).
Are we not putting too much emphasis on the organization being the saving power, in other words our salvation being dependent on instructions coming from imperfect men? Whereas salvation is clearly going to come from Jesus, and we may be anywhere doing anything when Jesus saves us. Or is the mark for survival from the secretaries ink horn contingent on having our backpack ready or hunkering down somewhere?? As if Jesus cannot save us uless we listen to these types of instructions. I always thought the criterion was dependent on pure worship. This whole life we live is a test of our loyalty to Jesus and Jehovah. Everything we do today and tomorrow, the choices we make with respect to pure worship is what places that mark on our foreheads. And after all these tests we encounter every day, then there will be another test to see how obedient we are to the GB?? Give me a break! Past Bible examples do show that there were certain procedures the people had to follow in order to survive, BUT the situation at Armageddon will be incomparable, it cannot be said to parallel any other situation before then. I don't know why we keep obsessing that it is the same. It's like regurgitating types and anti types again....drawing parallels where there are none.

It was stated by a bethel brother at an assembly…we were quiet relieved to hear it..it was when they were asking us if we had kept up with the changes…that was one of them….2006 is old news now.
Also brother Luchiani ( however you spell it )  gave a very recent talk on …only Jesus knows who will be saved…it was a excellent talk…you could tell he was reminding us…it wasn’t as blatant as the talk at the assembly and that talk was well after 2006 
Yes I still hear some talks given saying our life will depend on our loyalty to the org…..but I have never heard them equate the org with the ark since that assembly talk..
just on a side note I know it’s an organization but personally I prefer Gods people to organization…..the Israelites were GODS PEOPLE….the Jews were GODS PEOPLE…..The Christian’s were GODS PEOPLE….perhaps it’s something that’s just me…a little bit of a quirky thing,

We can always trust that Jehovah is righteous and his judgments are righteous. When all things are made new, the old will be forgotten. And I don't think we know enough about who will and won't survive anyway.

It’s okay JWI…I hadn’t actually finished my comment when I posted…and I’m just grateful the teaching has been changed….Jesus was a stumbling block for his own people…..and I beleive the organization at times has been like that with their own…a stumbling block.".the sadness of it at times is just overwhelming for those who dont survive.

I wasn't trying to beat round the bush. I agree that a lot of damage was done to many. For example, my father and his two sisters (my aunts) received the Children book in person at the St. Louis assembly. The Children book made my father and his two sisters reconsider marriage and having children, because it made having children in this system appear untheocratic, even unchristian. My father of course decided to marry and have children, but my two aunts did not have any children, and in later years they were both quite sad about having followed these "instructions from the Lord."
In 1950, the Watchtower was already loosening up on those instructions, as you can see from a Watchtower article that year, but still with the remaining implication that if you want "perfect" children, you should wait:
*** w50 6/1 p. 176 Letter ***
The flood was a real physical catastrophe to the old ungodly world. The Battle of Armageddon will be likewise a physical catastrophe to this present evil world, and not something just spiritual. The ark of salvation that we enter is not a literal ark but is God’s organization; and as for Noah’s family’s not having children while in the ark, if the “other sheep” class’ now having natural children in the “ark” condition vitiated the picture of the childlessness of the ark’s occupants, then the anointed remnant’s having natural children now would also vitiate the “ark” picture or type. But it does not. Children born now are not born in fulfillment of the divine mandate reissued. When God reissued this mandate to marry and reproduce to Noah after the flood (Genesis 9:1, 7) the mandate was fulfilled in a typical way by a token fulfillment, 70 (10 X 7) generations being listed in Genesis, chapter 10, as springing from Noah and his sons. In the same way the fulfillment of the divine mandate reissued after Armageddon will be, not by crowding it with inhabitants to the saturation point, but by a token fulfillment that will allow for the resurrection of the dead with plenty of room for these resurrected ones. Thus, as pointed out in the Watchtower article “The Apostle’s Counsel on Wedlock”, February 1, 1947, page 45, column 2, footnote, God will show that he can have the divine mandate fulfilled in a very literal way in vindication of his world and he will give a faithful demonstration of its fulfillment. Those having part in its fulfillment will still ‘serve God in his temple day and night’ (Rev. 7:15), they will fulfill Deuteronomy 6:7 as to bringing up their children, and their children will fulfill Ephesians 6:1-3 as to obeying their parents, in the same way that the anointed remnant and their children are instructed to obey these divine commandments.

Thank you…I know we dont often take into consideration these all lived  a whole different world and era….what was okay back them…would never be legally possible today nor even an accepted thing in the community,,,
And again some of this is here say or passed down..some written and with proof …all I know even tho I prefer Russell’s demeanour and his will for how things should go forward….we owe Rutherford credit for many things,,,,but I still think he unnecessarily laid the ground work for beating the sheep and making the truth harsh…just not what Russell wanted,

I already gave a short answer with my opinion on this question. I found it funny that I just got to a part of Persson's book where he answers the same question. It's unbelievably long. I just found it funny that someone put so much work into answering that question and even draws on some material where I never would have thought to look. In one case I didn't even know that the material existed. 
Persson uses a couple of the same ideas that I used in my answer. But many more, too. I don't think it's at all important to read all of what I'm about to paste below, but I wanted to let you know that it's only about HALF the information he actually uses in the book to answer the same question:

Pudgy is right. It's not written in the same words. It's written the way I quoted the same sentiment from the February 15, 1919 Watch Tower, p.51. In fact, the timing of that article might even make someone guess that it was a way of showing agreement with the similar, but much more direct, statement from the "Federal Council of Churches" (FCC) just a few weeks earlier. They both praise the objective/purpose of the League, and both convey that it is in line with the kingdom message foretold in the Bible. Also if you read the entire comment from the FCC you see that they also didn't make it the equivalent of God's Kingdom, just a political expression of it. It was very common in those decades for the Watchtower to express agreement with political happenings that they understood to be aligned with the expectations about the Kingdom. This was especially true of Zionism, movements with respect to "capital vs. labor," and various politicians of the time who were even depicted as the near equivalent of "prophets."
Edited to add an example:
For example, the 1924 Golden Age (now Awake!), on page 149, says:
We understand now, why Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, who like Judge Rutherford is permeated with the real Biblical and prophetic spirit, ceases not in his discourse to defy the devil, and throw (morally) an inkwell into his face, as the deceased Luther did. We understand also why the Premier of the Labor Party turns his back on the League of Nations, of which formerly he was an apostle, and draws near to the Americans whose eyes are opened.
Judge Rutherford cites, in addition to prophecies from Isaiah, Ezekiel and Amos, from Mr. MacDonald: "There is neither betterment nor peace in Europe. The governments are powerless. The year 1924 is worse than 1914." Again he [Rutherfod] quotes the prophet David Lloyd George: "A new chapter opens in the history of Europe, with a climax of horror such as the world has never witnessed."

I think you are right. This was the main issue that the "Stand Fasters" publicized. The Watchtower and Rutherford said that there was no problem in buying War Bonds, because it showed we were "friends" with the United States.
But I notice the date on the pamphlet you posted. January 1919. So this was also just about the exact same time when the Watchtower had declared its basic "support" for the League of Nations. In effect, the Watchtower was calling it 'the political expression of God's Kingdom on earth." Naturally they didn't think it in any way "replaced" God's Kingdom, but thought of it as a kind of expression of God's Kingdom because it had the same shared purpose and goals. The February 1919 Watchtower said:
“We cannot but admire the high principles embodied in the proposed League of Nations, formulated undoubtedly by those who have no knowledge of the great plan of God. This fact makes all the more wonderful the ideals which they express. For instance, it has been made plain by President Wilson and the advocates of his ideas that the proposed League of Nations is more than merely a league to enforce peace. They would not have us consider it to exclusively from the standpoint of politics or of military relations. It should be considered as fully from the economic and social points of view. The President’s idea seems to be that the League of Nations which he proposes would stand for world service rather than mere world regulation in the military sense, and that the very smallest of nations shall be participants in its every arrangement. In other words, his idea undoubtedly is that the league shall not be established merely for the purpose of promoting peace by threat or coercion; but that its purpose, when put into operation, will be to make all nations of earth one great family, working together for the common benefit in all the avenues of national life. Truly this is idealistic, and approximates in a small way that which God has foretold that he will bring about after this great time of trouble.” — Watch Tower,  February 15, 1919,  p.51
l have seen it pointed out that it was also a crazy coincidence that the Watchtower was here "wondering admiringly" at the League, even using the same words about its "wonderful" expressions and that we cannot but "admire" it's high principles. This was an unfortunate use of words when we consider that the 1984 New World Translation translated Revelation 17:8, purportedly about the same League of Nations, as follows:
(Revelation 17:8)  The wild beast that you saw was, but is not, and yet is about to ascend out of the abyss, and it is to go off into destruction. And when they see how the wild beast was, but is not, and yet will be present, those who dwell on the earth will wonder admiringly, but their names have not been written upon the scroll of life from the founding of the world.
The Stand Fasters claimed that Rutherford's attitude and words were compromising toward the world and its politics.

I think that part of the problem is that apostates are driven by a variety of motivations, and there is therefore a wide range of quality in their work. I have never heard of this book by Casarona, but from what you have shared, it seems to be the kind of book you could thumb through very quickly and reject as one of those that grasps at straws and just presents anything negative without doing much research, merely copying the worst claims he has heard about.
For example, Richard Wheelock did not jump from a third floor factory window as so many people think. He jumped from a window in the Towers Hotel. He had been suffering from depression from many years before this happened. He had even threatened suicide going as far back as the time when his fiance, Audrey Mock, left him to marry Brother Knorr.
It's stupid to blame the Society directly for factory accidents. These are usually human error. There are probably only a very few cases where legal liability might have reached "to the top." But it would be rare to get credible public knowledge of such events, because it would be rare for the family of a Bethelite to make a case against the entire Watchtower Society for a wrongful death. I can't imagine my own parents even thinking of such a thing if anything had happened to me there.
Yes, there were suicides even when I was there, but only two, I think. The numbers of Bethelites were greatly increased in the 1970s and there was a thought going around that congregation elders were purposely encouraging Bethel service to young brothers whom they termed "damaged goods." They thought that the spirituality at Bethel would fix them. In some cases it was evidently mental issues stemming from sexual abuse catching up to them. And we'll never really know what it was in this lifetime.
It appears that those were your words, not Casarona's. If so, I don't think it's fair to try to judge the faith of someone who suffers from deep bouts of depression. For all we know it was confident faith in the resurrection that motivated his suicide.
I do think, of course, that some ex-JWs, non-JWs, and apostates are definitely out to give Bethel, or the Watchtower Society, a bad review. But no matter their motive, I think we also need to look at the quality of their research. I remember when Jim Penton wrote a book about the history of the persecution of Witnesses in Canada. It was considered an excellent book and was available in the Bethel Library. Penton was considered an excellent historian and of course there was pride in that a professor or PhD had written such a good book. The Watchtower even said:
*** w77 1/1 p. 11 Insight on the News ***
“A Debt of Gratitude”
● Writing in the Toronto “Star” of October 4, 1976, Stuart Shaw mentions the book “Jehovah’s Witnesses in Canada: Champions of Freedom of Speech and Worship,” by James Penton, associate professor of history at the University of Lethbridge. Shaw explains that it discusses the intense persecution of the Witnesses in that country from 1939 to 1956, “first at the instance of the federal government and then at that of the government of Quebec.” . . .  Referring to the recent book, however, and shedding some light on the underlying cause, Shaw comments: “Penton argues convincingly, citing official correspondence and documents of the period, that the real reason was entirely different. The King government was under heavy clerical pressure—from the Roman Catholic Church in particular, but also from some Protestant clergymen—to suppress these ‘heretics.’”
Of course, when Penton later criticized certain aspects of the organization, he was disfellowshipped, and suddenly his books, even if they were better researched, were no longer argued convincingly, and he had somehow turned into a sloppy historian. 
I think that motivations and biases can be important to understand, but mostly it's about the quality of research and presentation of evidence. And sometimes we might have to ignore some conclusions a researcher might draw from the evidence, but still find the presentation of evidence itself valuable. 
Also, if no one finds anything specifically wrong with a book or research, or makes no attempt to counter the evidence, then it is probable that they are just complaining about the person BECAUSE the evidence itself is too strong to deal with.

It is my bad @Thinkingfor saying jumping and thanks JWI for the correction. Just goes to show how fleeing out of a window or balcony becomes jumping out of it. That is what had stuck in my mind, I did not mean jumping as in jumping from a great height in danger of hurting oneself, but figuratively speaking as in running away....it sounds more dramatic but easily givers a false impression. I had wanted to read the whole account again for accuracy but I was on my phone and all my files were on the computer. The account is in a booklet called Harvest Siftings that was later reprinted in a WT of the same year I believe.
Here it is in PDF file of Harvest Siftings. It will give you a good idea of what transpired during that period, at least from the point of view of Rutherford and others. The bit about the window saga is on page 6.
https://ia600902.us.archive.org/5/items/WatchtowerLibrary/booklets/1917_shf_E.pdf
 
 

There are bits and pieces of this in our publications. It's only when you put all the pieces together and hear PSL Johnson's side of the story that some of the apparent discrepencies start to make sense. Persson discusses this episode at great length (of course), considering the 1973 Yearbook, 1975 Yearbook, Proclaimers, Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose (1958), Faith on the March (1957) and the old Watchtower publications from 1916, 1917, and 1918. But he also quotes extensively from contemporary Bible Student sources and recent Bible Student sources such as the one's that @WalterPrescott has quoted from.
In fact, most of the paragraphs that Walter has been posting are taken directly from the writing of Rolando Rodriguez. You can find them here: https://millennialmessengers.wordpress.com/tag/charles-taze-russell/
and much of it repeated on a forum here: https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/thepresenttruthforum/the-fiery-cloudy-pillar-t4686.html?sid=a8e09c4a4332c2aea4e21c85819a15ac
Persson acknowledges contact with Rodriguez for his book and credits him with providing some historical document(s).
I think it's easy to get the idea from what's been said that PSL jumped out a window due to a mental breakdown. This is a conflation of several things that have been said about him in our publications. In fact, PSL apparently never jumped out of a window, but let himself down from the balcony where his feet could reach the fence, and then let himself down from the fence, also without jumping. He did this because he was being trapped in one of the London Bethel rooms with the door blocked, and under guard, likely both to keep him from being able to participate in a planned court hearing the next day, and to resolve a matter about some missing money. And Hemery, the person still managing the London Bethel, and an adversary in the court case, apparently wanted to go through his letters and papers in his briefcase before the court hearing took place. Hemery ended up doing just that.
Nobody was hurt, and Rutherford did not treat PSL as if he really had serious mental problems when he got back, as you might expect if everything said about him was true. Rutherford just didn't want him going back to the London Bethel where he had seen (or likely caused) so many problems.
[Edited to add: I was wrong on this point about Rutherford not dealing with PSLJ as if he had serious mental problems. Rutherford was actually quick to deal with PSLJ as insane and mentally unbalanced, but Rutherford was inconsistent, and seemed to soften his position toward him. This hadn't made sense to me originally, and I was partly influenced here by the comments of a brother I spoke to at length about this very recently after reading this portion of the book. But Persson's book provides a detail that I take as an obvious clue as to the reason for Rutherford's inconsistency. Persson doesn't appear to draw any conclusion from that detail, but it makes me think that it was not just an absent-minded inconsistency on Rutherford's part. It served a purpose.]
If you read the 1973 Yearbook, it looks like Hemery's account (the only one given) is an attempt to add a lot more dramatic flavor to the episode than most Watchtower-style writing. It's as if he wanted to write like an amateur Mickey Spillane.

Paul Samuel Leo Johnson Born Paul Samuel Leo Levitsky
October 4, 1873 Titusville, Pennsylvania, US Died October 22, 1950(aged 77) Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US Occupation Minister Years active 1898–1950 Known for Founder of the Laymen's Home Missionary Movement Notable work Epiphany Studies in the Scriptures Part of a series on Bible Students Communities Free Bible Students Laymen's Home Missionary Movement Publishing houses Dawn Bible Students Association Pastoral Bible Institute Publications The Dawn The New Creation Frank and Ernest (broadcast) Studies in the Scriptures The Photo-Drama of Creation Biographies Charles Taze Russell Jonas Wendell William Henry Conley Nelson H. Barbour Paul S. L. Johnson A. H. Macmillan J. F. Rutherford Conrad C. Binkele Beliefs Jehovah Nontrinitarianism Atonement Dispensationalism Sheol and Hades Resurrection Annihilationism Separations Jehovah's Witnesses  Christianity portal v t e Paul Samuel Leo (formerly Levitsky) Johnson (October 4, 1873 – October 22, 1950) was an American scholar and pastor, the founder of the Laymen's Home Missionary Movement. He authored 17 volumes of religious writings entitled Epiphany Studies in the Scriptures, and published two magazines from about 1918 until his death in 1950. The movement he created continues his work and publishes his writings, operating from Chester Springs, Pennsylvania.
He was born in Titusville, Pennsylvania on October 4, 1873, to Jewishparents who had recently immigrated from Poland. His father was a prominent Hebrew scholar,[citation needed] and eventually became president of the Titusville synagogue. His mother died when he was 12, and his father remarried, both of which caused him distress; he ran away from home several times.
He eventually converted to Christianity and joined the Methodist Church.[clarification needed]
In 1890, he entered the Capital University of Columbus, Ohio, and graduated in 1895 with high honors. Records in that University's Library show him enrolled as Paul Levitsky;[citation needed] he then went to the Theological Seminary of the Evangelical Lutheran Joint Synod of Ohioand graduated in 1898. He pastored a Lutheran church for a short time in Mars, Pennsylvania, and was then transferred back to Columbus, Ohio, at St. Matthew's Lutheran Church, which was later razed to make way for highway infrastructure. He soon built a new church building and was noted (by the Capitol University Synod)[citation needed] to have baptized more people and collected less money than any other pastor in the synod.
In May 1903 he left the Lutheran Church as a consequence of changes in his beliefs, and began fellowship with the Columbus Ecclesia of the Watch Tower Society. The Lutheran Church later claimed they had disfellowshipped him for heresy, but he had already left them of his own free will.[citation needed] A year later, Pastor Charles Taze Russellappointed him as a Pilgrim of the Bible Student movement. He eventually served as Russell's personal secretary. In time, he became Russell's most trusted friend and advisor.[citation needed]
Johnson suffered a nervous breakdown in 1910 a result of withstanding dissidents from within who were challenging the teachings of Pastor C.T. Russell on questions around his understanding of the new covenant and the ransom for all.
Johnson left the Watch Tower Society when Joseph F. Rutherford took over its direction after Russell's death. He founded the Laymen's Home Missionary Movement in 1920, and served on its board of directors from 1920 until his death on October 22, 1950.
 
Rutherford changed Russell’s understanding of the ark from that representing Jesus…to representing the organisation….and just from this fast cursory search it doesnt seem he was much of a friend to Rutherford as he was to Russell.

I thought I wouldn't do this, but since you asked, I found the answer interesting.
In 1915 Rutherford felt himself a "defender of the faith" in a very literal sense. He had written a defense against most of the attacks on Russell in 1915. When Russell died, in 1916, it looks like Rutherford was genuinely concerned to do the right thing, scripturally. I hadn't known that P.S.L. Johnson was actually a very good friend of Rutherford's at the time. (Later they had a big falling out.) So when Russell died, Rutherford went to his good friend because he trusted him to know the prophetic types better than anyone, and wanted to know if Russell would have a successor. (They had both just recently met in Maryland at the time Russell died. Johnson lived in Ohio, but was in Maryland on a "Pilgrim" visit  and Rutherford was there on business.)
Johnson told Rutherford that he didn't know about Russell having a successor, but he would study the "types and anti-types" and get back to him. And they both traveled fto NY in the next couple of days to get to the funeral. It might seem naive to look at "types" for a kind of "sign" as to what to do next, but it was new to me that Rutherford did not at that moment come across like the bombastic, brash person we sometimes think of from later months. Even though we have recently dropped "type/antitype" doctrines, it is interesting that they would use these as a kind of "Urim/Thummin" before they made a decision, and not just find "types and antitypes" to explain or justify or "scripturalize" decisions or events that already happened.
When they felt "lost" they turned the Bible, and Rutherford turned humbly to someone he thought of as smarter than himself on scriptural matters. (PSL Johnson was considered to be the most brilliant of the Bible Students at the time.)
Also, I learned from the book that the board of directors actually tried to run things the way that Russell had outlined in his "last will and testament." Johnson said that this lasted about a week. It wasn't just Rutherford who were rejecting Russell's will.

In the book, Persson notes that he first noticed a discrepancy in the book "Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose" (jp) in the late 1960's, and that's when he first took an interest in our modern-day history. But he started his research in 1973 (still a Witness, of course) when he began writing to those who still had some first-hand knowledge or documentation. He planned to write the book in the late 1970's, he says, but was delayed with other matters (unspecified). There are many indications from his research that he was very serious about this project for many years prior to 2014.
I called an older brother from Bethel in his 80's last night and we spoke for about 2 hours about things he knew about the matter. I'd heard things from an elderly elder in the 1970's at Bethel (my "Table Head") but the elder I spoke to last night actually did a lot of historical research, and his writings are still being used in the current publications (but it's things he wrote several years ago; he is "retired" and not actively writing any more). He didn't know about the book, but won't get it or read it because he thinks of Rud Persson as an apostate. But he's happy to answer any questions. 
When at Bethel, I was just one of several Bethelites who taped interviews (about those "olden days") with persons like Maxwell Friend, Fred Franz, and Grace DeCecca because we could give non-outline Sunday talks in the congregations in those days, and I gave a couple of talks in several congregations based on excerpts from several hours of those interviews. This same brother I spoke to last night had helped me organize the excerpts.

https://cairnsnews.org/2022/04/09/who-ihr-treaty-will-override-constitutions-of-australia-and-america/

Blamed? Why do you think anyone is blaming Russell. Russell must have sincerely thought that he had personally been appointed to an awesome responsibility. And yet, he would only admit it privately, and never try to push others to accept it.
Still, he said he considered that it was a very important responsibility for only one individual, and he said that modesty made him reluctant to have to claim that the parable of "that servant" pointed to only one man. Would modesty make him reluctant to admit that some other person held the title? The way he managed this sincere belief so well makes him a rather more endearing person in my mind than for example, someone like J.F.Rutherford who gave himself the title "JUDGE" and printed it on his handbills and posters and billboards, yet he was never appointed as a judge, but was only asked to substitute at least once in a country courthouse in Missouri.
I have always thought of Russell's personality as displaying about the right mix of both modesty and conviction. I think of him as kind of an "ideal" gentleman Christian for his era. There are etiquette books for gentlemen from his era which give advice on such things, and which mix them with Christian values, like not trying to seat yourself at the head of the table, but allowing others to make that place for you. Speakers would not give their credentials in their own speeches, but would allow themselves to be introduced with their titles of honor and designations. I hate it when I see so many speakers today try to slyly work in their own resume and accomplishments when it's not appropriate to the theme of their speech.
I just read in one of those etiquette books (on Google) from 1876 that the right way for a gentleman to end a letter, in many cases, was to sign it: "Your obedient servant" even though you knew you were not really that person's servant. 
I believe that Russell did avoid personally and publicly the claim to this title, but he definitely believed that he was the one person who needed modesty because he was the one appointed with that title. He accepted the title from others, and there is no evidence that he ever would counsel them or try to stop them from using that title when referring to him. Since he believed it himself, why would he? It would seem dishonest. The best he could do is deflect a bit. And I believe there were times when he must have done that. I'm sure he knew the scripture where Jesus was called "good teacher" and Jesus said "Why do you call me good?"
I agree that others applied that term to him. He admits as much in the same Watch Tower article when he speaks of his reluctance to publish the understanding that he must now say "that servant" no longer applies to individuals, plural, but to a single individual.
You might also be thinking of what A. H. MacMillan said about how Russell would answer the direct question:


That was from MacMillan's Faith on the March, p. 126-127.
Rutherford was not yet even one of the Society's officers. And Russell's will had not even appointed him to the initial 5 person Editorial Committee of the Watchtower. So I suspect that it could have been MacMillan himself, or one of the others on the committee. They all needed to approve what went into the December 1, 1916 Watch Tower, dated only 31 days after Russell had died. But MacMillan elsewhere says that Russell would also respond that he was "the servant," but not above others (rather than "a servant," but not above others). I don't think that was just a typo because MacMillan says it twice in the same book.
Exactly!!
I'm not finding fault, just giving my opinion about whether (and why) he claimed to be God's spokesman, and claimed to represent the one channel of truth, and accepted the title "the faithful and wise servant". This has a lot to do, I think, with why Russell could be hesitant or undogmatic about an idea, and yet, the other brothers around him would think that it was "an angel" who had given unerring truth. That's what this original topic is about. Russell didn't think that being individually appointed as the "faithful slave" made him unerring in speaking truth, or a prophet. Yes, he made errors, and was a sinful person. He lied (perjured himself) on the stand in court when asked about his business interests, and was forced to correct his perjury in a following court session. He was manipulative and dishonest in his divorce proceedings. I agree that this is completely forgivable when we consider his sincerity in publishing some of the most important Bible truths. Of course, we are thankful for that. But we must never put a man, or group of men, on a pedestal because it tends to create an idolatrous cult (per our own publications). Yesterday, I found a person on YouTube, for example, who calls Russell "an angel."
It's my opinion that I am sowing seeds of truth about Russell, by telling the truth according to Russell's own words and those who knew him. I don't see where "doubt" comes in. It's not like we are supposed to have "faith" in Russell, is it?
Trying to get to know a man's thinking and personality a little better through his own writings is not the same as condemning him. And much of this, to be sure, is just an opinion formed about him. Just as the others around him formed opinions about him in his time. We still teach that Jesus himself formed an opinion about him, and this is a "current teaching" about Russell, not some relic of our past history. So I don't think it's wrong for us to keep learning more about this very intriguing and spiritually influential man.
As an example, we still learn about King David, and sometimes wonder about his great sins, and Jehovah's continued love for him. But it doesn't mean that learning about David's sins is a sign that we are not humble or that we are condemning the man for admitting things David said and did.

No, I don't agree with that. The December 1, 1916 Watchtower says this with respect to the belief already held by thousands:
"that he filled the office of 'that faithful and wise servant' and that his great work was giving to the household of faith meat in due season. His modesty and humility precluded him from openly claiming this title, but he admitted as much in private conversation." 
So, was the Watchtower telling the truth when it said that Russell had admitted that he filled the office of that faithful and wise servant?
(Proverbs 27:2)  Let someone else praise you, and not your own mouth; Others, and not your own lips.
I think it's pretty easy to see that Russell had "staked the claim" to being the 'faithful and wise servant' by allowing others to make the claim publicly. This would start with his wife making the claim for him, beginning in 1895. Until then, Russell had taught that it was all Christians in the entire household of faith who needed to follow the example of such a faithful servant. But then in 1896, he said he was now changing that belief because the Scriptures gave him no choice. It was now no longer applied to individuals (plural), but just ONE individual man who would be providing spiritual food at the proper time ("meat in due season"). But notice that he added that he could not let modesty get in the way of making this doctrinal change.
"it would be wrong to allow modesty or any other consideration, good or bad, to warp our judgment in the exposition of [Matthew 24:45] . . . to which proposition we agree." -- March 1, 1896 Watch Tower
This explains why Russell claimed in the April 15, 1904 Watch Tower that the Lord would
"specially use one member of his church as the channel or instrument through which he would send the appropriate messages, spiritual nourishment appropriate at that time."
In 1906, Russell would claim that:
"the truths I present, as God's mouthpiece . . . were ... revealed . . . especially since 1870 and particularly since 1880. . . . and if I did not speak, and no other agent could be found, the very stones would cry out." -- July 15, 1906 Watch Tower
In 1911, Russell spoke at the Convention, where other speakers would say things like the following, and which the Watch Tower Society published in the 1911 Convention Report.
"... the Lord . . . has placed Pastor Russell in charge of the work. . . . We are glad therefore to recognize him as 'that servant,' spoken by the Lord . . . doing ... the work the Lord appointed him to do.
Russell also published letters in multiple issues of the Watch Tower which addressed him as "that Servant" and acknowledged that he was the one faithful servant providing "meat in due season" for the household of faith.

I thought as much after I deliberated over it for a few days.
It was an interesting experiment. It made me realize that rather than the actual content, which I merely skimmed over like Tom, I was more concerned with the reputation or status of the person who wrote it. This was interesting because I see this mentality today. It's not only that we want to protect our belief system, but it goes deeper than that.  It highlighted that many times it's not what is said but who says it. Perhaps this explains why some of us embrace some beliefs which we don't really understand fully, (or cannot explain ourselves) without bothering to really understand them because ... ahem.....because we trust those who put forward these explanations. If 1914 had been explained by an Indian Guru, I doubt anyone of JWs would be interested. Or perhaps it would be adopted, but its origins would be buried, just like John Aquila Brown and others who made 1914 calculations.
So I hesitated, (although my instinct told me otherwise) because I know you like to dig deep but of late you also try not to stir the pot. My instincts told me you are trying to illustrate a point. The point that if we try hard enough, we can pick a few scriptures and make them fit something that we want support for. And if you have already built a certain reputation, especially trustworthiness, it will most likely convince others too. That just seems to be the rule as you say with people in general.
Tom was more on the ball, being suspicious that you would make a 180 turn. And Pudgy the old dog realist heard a ring of the "cat thesis" (which I did too actually, and I do know you have a wicked sense of humour).
My hubby and me have finished the one docu series and now we have started another Netflix one called the Family, this time about a Christian group (you've probably seen that too). It's amazing what people are capable of doing and believing. Of course when watching these documentaries I always compare our belief system, not so much the content but more the way we apply it, and thankfully, I always see how superior our application is to even so called Christians.
One thing that struck me and gave me an idea, although this is off topic here but I don't think it matters now because we have all veered off since your "experiment" is over.  Anyway, most will know that I am skeptical about Governments turning on religion, especially in the United States where it plays such an integral part of society and the constitution. Something that was said in the Family made me think of another angle. The journalist whose story this is, overhears Doug Coe, one of the leaders of the Family, saying to another member that "putting labels on religions such as "Muslim", "Christian" gets in the way of your prayers to Jesus .....organized religion detracts from Jesus...we've got to take Jesus out of the religious wrapping". This is IT! It's not that religion per say will be destroyed, but organized religion will be. One of the episodes is called One World Order. Arauna would be proud of me.
 

Rutherford, as he did many times in the years 1916 to 1929, had to carefully acknowledge that Russell alone had been the one and only faithful and wise servant (faithful and discreet slave), and therefore the sole distributor of spiritual truths up until his death in 1916. Since Russell and/or the Watchtower was the one and only channel of truth in the minds of Watchtower readers, Rutherford had to be very careful when explaining how and why Russell got things wrong.
But it was all too obvious that Abraham had not inherited the land in 1915. Russell himself had already hinted that 1915 might be the new 1914. And after 1914, the Watchtower even began saying that the "end of the Gentile Times" was 1915, not 1914. After Russell's death in 1916, Rutherford even began emphasizing the "presence" of Jesus to a 40 year period that went, not from 1874 to 1914, but from 1878 to 1918, when Jesus would be fully "present" in his Temple. And by 1917, Rutherford had already gone ahead and started promoting a new date of 1925 for the "realized" end of the Gentile Times, i.e., when the Jewish (Hebrew) "ancient worthies" like Abraham would begin to rule, initially over fellow Jews who had migrated to Palestine. 
He very cleverly keeps the 3,960 years of the Genesis 15 "prophecy" intact, but he changes the starting date from 2045 BCE to 2035 BCE, ten years later. He uses the mention of something that appeared to happen 10 years later in Genesis 16:3 and says that this showed that the actual sacrifice of the animals had happened 10 years later, even though the context makes it appear that this had happened 10 years earlier. If Rutherford can redate the promise (covenant) to 10 years later, then this moves the 1915 date to 1925. Note especially the last two paragraphs below from the entire 1917 article on the topic.
 

No moderator added this. It's an artifact of your own editing. You evidently started out "i smell" when you were writing "i smell a troll . . ." But when you were editing your post to change the "i" to "I" and use highlighting and color, you had moved that original line too far down in the editing window, and forgot to edit it back out, because you probably couldn't see it.
I think I can edit people's posts, but I won't do it. I know I can delete a post entirely. Although, in the past, instead of deleting posts (when I have no request to delete) I merely move them to a new topic. But I think you would prefer this gets deleted. So, unless you say otherwise in the next few minutes, I will try to delete the whole post. To clean it all up, I think I should then clean up a few of the other remarks that were part of this, including one from Anna and perhaps others.
I think that most people who post here regularly are already aware that you ARE the same person behind the accounts: Allen Smith, Billy The Kid, NoisySrecko, Dmitar, Leander H McNeely, etc., etc., etc. There is no real question about that for many of us. But that fact has already been brought up elsewhere.

Not exactly a joke, TTH, and, yes, Anna, it was something a little more akin to an experiment. Not so much about gullibility, but about human nature and the way we protect our belief systems. But I think this "experiment" was inadvertently conducted already, especially between 1907 and 1917:
In 1917 Rutherford wrote the following in the October 15, 1917 Watchtower, p.317:


So, this was not my personal opinion, but was supposed to have once been an interpretation of prophecy handed down to Rutherford through the Holy Spirit -- or "made known to us by the Spirit" as the article says. I merely copied the same idea and numbers that the Watchtower used:
When you multiply the 11 years by 360, you get 3,960. 2045 BCE + 3,960 years brings us to the year 1915.
Although the Bible doesn't say both birds were young, the Spirit evidently made J.F.Rutherford assume both were one year old. It was actually C.T.Russell who printed this idea first in 1907, considering it credible, of course, but not trying to present it as absolute "inspired" truth. Here are some snippets from the March 1, 1907 Watchtower which included:



But even if Russell only published this idea presented as a "remarkable coincidence" it still took on a life of its own. If something got printed in the Watchtower and, of course, because C.T.Russell considered himself and the Watchtower as "God's mouthpiece" it was still taken very seriously. In fact, Brother Woodworth (co-author of The Finished Mystery) immediately (in 1907) added this idea to the Berean Bible Teachers' Manual as one of the: "Twenty Time Proofs -- That the Reign of Evil Will Cease and the Earthly Phase of the Kingdom of God Be Established in 1914-1915."   So it was there in time to bind into the KJV Bibles that the Watchtower Society produced in 1907 and the 1908 edition, too. According to the current Proclaimers book, p.606: ( https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101993037 )
Four years later, in 1907, the Bible Students Edition of the King James Version was published. The “Berean Bible Teachers’ Manual” was bound with it, as an appendix. This included concise comments on verses from all parts of the Bible, along with references to Watch Tower publications for fuller explanation.
These already contained Genesis 15:9 as one of those "PROOFS" of 1914/1915.
 

Like Tom pointed out earlier w/regard to the actual congregations of the 1st century - the congregations weren't free from strife. Why would anyone imagine it would be so today? To believe that you must not be reading your bible with any depth of understanding. In fact it seems sometimes that there's more there to give us all something to deal with - we get some great learning experiences.

such dreadful things have happened…it is devastating  that some men in positions of power or authority can wield  a ignorant understanding of Christs Law over a cong…it does happen…I don’t understand at times why some cannot see that it happens…perhaps because they cannot imagine that Jehovah would allow such things amongst his people…yet that in itself means they do not understand how Jehovah works..what he allows..and why….and it has ALWAYS happened amongst his people…because we are not yet under his full blessings and care.
But there is good too..kindness and acts of brotherly love that I cannot find elsewhere,,,and I want to remind you…that it was loving brothers that corrected my dreadful situation…yes it was too late….but they did act…and were as devastated over the situation nearly as I…..they were the kind and good brothers in places of authority…they out number the bad…and even the bad after discipline may very well be forgiven…and as I write this I know if I picked up my phone to my loving kind elders..(of whom I don’t always agree with) and ask for help…I know they will be there for me.
   Being used as a people does not mean he finds us all acceptable….or as once taught that the organization as perfect….far from it….but what you are doing is not acceptable either ….you dont have it all correct either…and you have as much sin to carry around as I do…or any other brother and sister…and to who ever you associate with…they also cannot do what Jehovah has a achieved with this imperfect people assembled before him…and it’s even going to take Jesus a thousand years to get it all right…not because of his lack of power…but because how degraded we as humans have become.
Even his people at this time have become more degraded than fifty years ago….I wish I had the understanding  I have now …twenty years ago….not in chronology or in getting an exact understanding of every little bit of law…and scripture….but in Jehovah himself and why and how he teaches his peoples…in what he’s really like..and why he does certain things and why he allows certain things…
At times I wish I had my time in the truth all over again…but I was a babe..and I had to grow and mature..and yet I’m still a babe In Jehovahs eyes…and even those that direct us go thru the same experience… they don’t do everything right either…just like Moses never got it right…just as we get a bit of wisdom we are ready for the grave …as we die like gnats at this time of the end.
My and my families experience has forced me thru the fire of refinement…and a long hard look at what Jehovah has forgiven me for….certainly makes me stand before him as if naked and ashamed…..try to remember that you don’t serve a organization…you don’t serve the GB…but you serve Jehovah and his Son….you must hold on to that…and endure…ENDURE ENDURE ENDURE And  be kind to other brothers and sister trying to stay afloat and never ever endanger their faith that may be getting tested…never ever be the one to extinguish  a flickering flame of faith….because Jehovahs watching one’s like you and me..and he will treat us as we have treated others…and as far as ones like Space Merchant making it….I think you will find Jehovah has that all in hand as well….in fact we need to be thankful that Jehovah even gave one’s like you and me a sideways glance…

Yes. If you don’t forgive and put it behind you, you never heal. You are forever rehashing your injury. In close to 50 years with Jehovah’s earthly organization, the supportive benefits have far exceeded the abrasions that can come from working closely with people. But that does not mean that abrasions have never occurred. In No Fake News, I wrote: 
“After studying one book seemingly written for no other purpose other than to harp on dress and grooming and harangue about field service, the conductor said to me: “Tom, why don’t you comment? You know all these answers.” It was a turning point. He was right. I did know them all. It was time to stop sulking. From the circuit overseer on down, they had stirred up major chaos in the family. They had been heavy-handed and clumsy - but never malicious. And it had never been Jehovah.
I had read of ill-goings-on in the first-century record. Congregations described in Revelation chapters 2 and 3 were veritable basket cases, some of them, but that did not mean that they were not congregations. Eventually things smooth out. Eventually 1 Timothy 5:24 comes to pass: “The sins of some men are publicly known, leading directly to judgment, but those of other men will become evident later.” “Later” may take its sweet time in rolling around but it always does roll around. Should I stumble when it becomes my turn? I’d read whiner after whiner carrying on about some personal affront or other on the Internet. Was I going to be one of them?”
When a circuit overseer years later—he was a good guy—tried to soften matters – saying how God sends just the right personality at just the right time, I said “Look. I know the line. I’m perfectly willing to spin it and even view things that way - God works with people. I get that. But I also want to call a spade a spade. The guy was an unbalanced nut.” Later when my daughter asked the circuit overseer about his conversation with her dad, the latter replied: “He was…frank.”
Jesus makes exactly this point in his illustration of the slave not forgiving his fellow slave for a debt after his master had forgiven him for a huge one. It’s a matter of looking at things from his point of view, not our own.
“That is why the Kingdom of the heavens may be likened to a king who wanted to settle accounts with his slaves.  24 When he started to settle them, a man was brought in who owed him 10,000 talents.  25 But because he did not have the means to pay it back, his master ordered him and his wife and his children and all the things he owned to be sold and payment to be made.  26 So the slave fell down and did obeisance to him, saying, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay back everything to you.’  27 Moved with pity at this, the master of that slave let him off and canceled his debt.  28 But that slave went out and found one of his fellow slaves, who owed him 100 de·narʹi·i, and grabbed him and began to choke him, saying, ‘Pay back whatever you owe.’  29 So his fellow slave fell down and began to beg him, saying, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.’  30 However, he was not willing, but he went and had him thrown into prison until he could pay back what he owed.  31 When his fellow slaves saw what had happened, they became greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their master all the things that had happened. 
Then his master summoned him and said to him: ‘Wicked slave, I canceled all that debt for you when you pleaded with me.  33 Should you not also have shown mercy to your fellow slave as I showed mercy to you?’  34 With that his master, provoked to wrath, handed him over to the jailers until he repaid all that he owed.  35 My heavenly Father will also deal with you in the same way if each of you does not forgive your brother from your heart.” (Matthew 18)