ComfortMyPeople

Hmmmmm……. I always thought those tunnels were used for giant radioactive ant men to get to central Australia. 
….. since the “other” stories about the tunnels have no proof, mine is EQUALLY valid. 
…… and Certainly worth what you paid for it.
For $15.00 I will send you a genuine hand drawn map!

There are also accounts of little green men on Mars, and Yeti, and Sasquatch. Fred Franz' time covers the 1920's through the 1990's. No one here can pin this story down any closer? The rooms branching off the tunnels were the residence buildings themselves and the laundry room. And a couple of openings for outside utility workers which might have been caged off to keep civilians like Bethelites from turning handles, or switching off electricity. The commissary was also attached to one tunnel. Some say there was food preparation in the tunnels, but this was actually because one of the buildings, not use for foot traffic, was used to transfer items from one of the buildings via an elevator. It would not be a place for any private conversations, because constant passerby's could hear.
It's these stories of rooms branching off that already tells me that the person telling the story is misremembering, lying, or might have been afraid of tunnels and let their claustrophobic imaginations run wild. 
I saw somewhere on the order of 0 little girls in 6 years, except on guided tours. Was the "first woman" also the "little girl?" Is it possible that the mental scars came first, which could also help to explain the story?
Where do I find these reports?

It was 4:45 am and I decided to watch this video. Very strange. It's the first I ever heard of such a "brother" at Walkill Bethel. While I was at Brooklyn Bethel I never had an opportunity to go to Walkill but once, and that was only to look at a piece of typesetting equipment being designed by some brothers up there. I couldn't believe anyone there had been given so much freedom to work on their own projects, and here was a group of several brothers doing just that, and that particular project (electronic typesetting) turned out to be a great success soon adopted by the WTS.
If someone knew the Walkill Bethel family during the years in question, it wouldn't be too hard to figure out who this man with the notebooks was. If I heard the video narration accurately (at 2.5x speed) it sounds like he had a brother and a wife also at Walkill, and he implies perhaps even another relative. Even at Brooklyn, during the time I was there (1976 to 1982) the turnover rate was very high. A complaint in the Home Office was that Elders all around the country were quick to approve their "problem cases" from their local congregations in the hopes that Bethel would "fix" them. Even the group I came in with had a brother who kept asking me to join his new study group because he realized he was now anointed. I assume there were others. In fact, I knew several brothers who were involved in private Bible study groups usually in the room of a brother from the Writing Dept, or Service Dept, and who were very upset (myself included) that a "crazy" brother was going to ruin this wonderful opportunity to study with highly experienced brothers, because this one "crazy" one was spreading strange ideas that might end up getting all of the private study groups closed down because of "one bad apple." I knew about 10 brothers who had come from my home state in nearby circuits, and three of them returned with serious mental problems, which may not have been in evidence before they were approved to be accepted to Bethel.
So I don't doubt that brothers who had strange ideas about themselves could have existed, and might have been protected to some degree by a close friend, roommate, wife or relative, who was there with them.
But I think the video narration breaks down in accuracy when he talks about Brooklyn Bethel's tunnels as if they were something secret. I was on the tour guide list, so every week or so, I was called away from work to handle one of the tours. Fairly often, I would hear the visitors ask, "Are you really going to show us the secret tunnels???" Or, "Is it true that Bethel has secret tunnels?" And my response was that of course we are going to see them, we'll use them to get between 124, 107, and The Towers Hotel. The main reason for the tunnels was to avoid airing Bethel's dirty laundry. And to avoid airing the clean laundry, too. That's because the laundry room was connected to the tunnels between the buildings, and this way all deliveries of laundry to and from the residence rooms could be rolled through the tunnels and never have to go through the otherwise quiet and up-scale neighborhood of Brooklyn Heights. The neighborhood thought it was bad enough that Bethel factory workers crossed back and forth after breakfast, at lunch and dinnertime. (No tunnels to the "117 Adams" factories or "25 and 30 CH Squibb bldgs.") Imagine 1,000 people all crossing the street level at once around 6:55am to be seated for 7:00am text and breakfast!
There was absolutely nothing secret about the tunnels. No places for sinister meetings. They were at least 7 feet high, at least 10 feet wide, well-lit and constantly traversed.
I don't know if or care if "Pearl" begins to respond to people without thinking what she is going to say in advance. That description might be something odd as @Thinking has said, or it might be a lot like the way some of the brothers in Writing or Correspondence (part of Service Dept at the time) answered questions. When a question came in by letter, they were expected to just start writing without referring to notes or any preparation, and I knew brothers who could write pages and pages with scripture references and never prepare for the question specifically. One brother in Writing, who had written large portions of the Aid Book also wrote Watchtower articles and convention material this way, even the study articles. He'd be given a theme to write about and often just started typing at about 70 wpm and ended up with the entire study article, scriptures and all, requiring no edits.
The idea that there were "channelers" at Bethel who were given any credence at all, might be a conflation of mixed up information about the Seola book which the WTS rewrote as "Angels and Women" and actually promoted it as a "channeled" book. There were also the "Radio" therapy machines promoted by the WTS, which were NOT promoted as any kind of spiriitism, but non WTS versions of these machines sometimes were. Then there were opposers of JWs who made much of the admissions by the editor of the Golden Age magazine that he was once demon-possessed which he says caused him to disagree with Russell on an important matter. (It's in a WT-printed letter and a Convention Report.) And, it's a long shot, but some of the conflation could have come from Rutherford himself who had claimed that since 1918, Jehovah's holy spirit was removed from "his holy temple" and now "lightnings" were made to "flash and shine" through direct communication with angels. (That teaching didn't last for too many years.) And then there was one GB member from about 1974 to 2000+ who sometimes (but rarely) suffered from a kind of epilepsy apparently and would appear to be in a kind of trance, which affected his speech patterns. His wife would tell him, "Back to earth, [name removed], come on down back to earth."
I could see how one or more of these things could be twisted into a rumor of the kind that results in stories.

Basically, you are right. But I'm not apologizing for what I've written, but just the way some people would be expected to over-react to it.
I can. Read about David, Moses, Peter, Paul, Barnabas, Mark, Thomas, and James with John along with "Mrs." Zebedee.  People are complicated.  We can easily find fault but we need to balance the good they have done, too.
That he was a normal, sinful man, yet probably still much better than most men. But he seems to have been smitten with self-righteousness, or even "sons of Zebedee" syndrome. We can't judge his faults and prejudices outside the times he lived in and we can't impugn his convictions and his faith, nor his love for Jehovah and Christ Jesus. We can't read his heart. When I read a most of his Biblical commentary, even the chronology commentary that I disagree with, I would guess that his heart was definitely in the right place. His motives seem generally commendable. Outside of the commentary and exegesis forced by his faulty chronology, his writing is still valid and valuable.
When he used the Watchtower in such a petty way, to publicize only his side of a two-sided argument, and print supporting letters, he was doing the very thing he had complained that Barbour had done with the Herald. When Russell also began to use the Watch Tower funds as his means of support he was doing the same thing he had complained that Barbour had done. Did this make him a hypocrite? Or did Russell just change his view on such things? Russell actually ended up giving his one-sided view about 5 or 6 (read, "most") of his earliest editorial associates in the pages of the Watch Tower. (These were often in the "Harvest Siftings.") Rutherford used the magazine in the same way against all opposers to his 1917 presidency, denouncing the opposers the "evil slave." Similarly, for Salter, Moyle and a couple of others. I'm sure some also appreciate the fact that they both had the fortitude to stand for their convictions, and protect the editorial integrity of the Watch Tower. But we can look back now and see that that it wasn't even-handed. And we probably should never expect that it could have been even-handed.
To explain more fully my view of Russell, I think it is possible to make him sound much worse than I did. But I fear, you might have been the only one interested in any of those details. And I might be over-reaching and too judgmental. I'll definitely be considered imbalanced by those who disagree with me. My point is not to denounce him, but to avoid looking back with so many rose-colored filters that we forget he was just a man, a lot like any other man. 
It's dangerous, in my opinion, to come so close to teaching that a specific man did so much that his work fulfilled a specific Bible prophecy. That's the only reason I speak up about him like this at all. 

I just re-read what I wrote, and realize it gives a much worse impression of CTRussell than I intended. I believe what I wrote above, so I don't see a need  to rewrite it. Much of it came from notes when I tried to defend Russell against some things that Edmond Gruss had written, along with my own attempt to use what Rutherford wrote to defend Russell in "A Great Battle in the Ecclesiastical Heavens" (1915).
But I don't think of Russell as Pharisaical in any way in spite of Matthew 23:2,3. I do think that Russell played a key role in congealing the "Great Awakening" and "Restoration" movements into a much more "Christian" brotherhood. He realized early on just how different the particular set of "best practices" and "best doctrines" were from the other Christian organizations. And although he didn't like the use of the term organization, it made no difference, because he wanted to organize a more Christian brotherhood "out of Babylon the Great" as early as 1881. This doesn't mean that Babylon fell in that year, or even in 1919. But it was some of the most important progress made in the whole 19th century.
 

I think that this topic now contains sufficient overgrowth so that my next comments will end up being of much less interest to those who have much less interest. My comments here --just my opinion, of course-- are a follow-up on previous comments about why I would not think of Russell and his associates, specifically, as the fulfillment of Malachi 3. One reason, of course, is that Malachi 3 was already said to be fulfilled in John the Baptist, and this explanation came from Jesus himself. I don't think we have a right to try to one-up Jesus' explanation. Also, the only reason it seems necessary to turn Russell's work into the fulfillment of Bible prophecy is our unique chronology surrounding 1914. So far, imo, all the Biblical evidence indicates against 1914. And, even if something like that could be claimed, there would still be nothing pointing to 1919, which is apparently the real reason behind the Malachi 3 application. 
I don't want to rehash some of what is already in a topic linked below, but there was a point that Anna brought up in that topic which is worth considering:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/47934-charles-taze-russell-was-he-recently-canonized/
I'm sure you are right, Anna, that it can be difficult for a man to stay humble when he believes he has an important mission to accomplish. This is especially true when one's chronological worldview has painted him into a corner. And there is a pedestal placed in that corner. The problem is that Russell did a lot of that painting himself.
The Day of the Lord had already begun in 1874, the Millennium had begun around 1873, Jesus had come and was now present on earth since 1874, although invisible. He was right then calling the last of the marriage guests, the remaining members of his Bride. If he didn't take them in 1878, then he must have meant for all of them to begin changing at the moment of their death (or rapture?) after October 2, 1881. The "door was shut" on that date, and there would be no more new members called, with the possible exceptions necessary to replace any who had proven unfaithful before their death. Between 1881 and 1914 (or well before) all of Christ's Bride would be with Christ having been rewarded with their spiritual bodies. And Russell was now God's mouthpiece for those "wise virgins" who would prove themselves faithful.
It's difficult to imagine a person who "puts his money where his mouth is," and "sticks his neck out" to convince people how close we are to the end as having ulterior motives. If he is not sincere, he is only asking for shame and notoriety. And I don't accuse him of ulterior motives. And I'm sure he wasn't looking for shame. But I'm also a big fan of the Bible's admonition:
(Romans 3:4) . . .let God be found true, even if every man be found a liar, . . .
And I don't think it's too much of a stretch to see that Russell sometimes lied.
I'm not talking about those times when he contradicted himself in the Watch Tower, claiming he hadn't said something that he had, for example. I'm talking mostly about trying to manipulate the legal courts with untruths. These occasions seem obvious when I look at the court case he lost to his wife. (Personally, I think anyone who only reads the uncontested testimony would think of what Russell did to his wife as absolutely disgusting.)  But those issues will be chalked up to "he-said-she-said."  But there were occasions when Russell committed perjury, and had to carefully walk back his own previous testimony to avoid the consequences. (If anyone really cares, this information is already public, so I can point it out if necessary.)
There is also this claim that Russell was an extremely successful businessman who spent his fortune on something that would not benefit him financially. Well, people do this all the time, especially if they think they might get something else out of it besides financial gain. But then again, it was his father who had proven himself financially successful before Russell was born. 
And, then when Russell was sure there were only the few months left before the Bride's "rapture" between early 1876 and Spring 1878, did he really spend that fortune? Russell admitted in the Watchtower that he only gave a maximum of about $700 in total to that entire effort before Spring 1878. And he gave every indication that he thought that enterprise could even be profitable, if it weren't for mismanagement and unnecessary spending by Barbour. He knew exactly how much profit came from the selling of hymn books, the Three Worlds, and the "Object and Manner" tracts he had written himself. And in any case, it spring-boarded his name from a co-editor of the Herald, to the editor of the Watch Tower.
That doesn't make him dishonest, of course, but I started thinking of Russell as a little less than perfectly honest when I noticed that he wrote articles containing ideas from other people and never credited his source for those ideas. Instead, he wrote it was now God's time to begin revealing his plans in advance to his servants, that it was God's time to give the key, to reveal the mysteries of the Kingdom. Although he goes to the trouble of asking for the self-promoting endorsement of  the primary expert on the Great Pyramid (Piazzi-Smyth) over the accuracy of many of "his" pyramid claims, he never gives credit to the person he copied so much of it from (Seiss). His article on the "seven times" published by George Storrs is the same. You would think he came up with it himself.
But did Russell actually "spend  his fortune" or "sell his business interests" even after 1881?
According to the 1907 court case, Russell was involved in many investments and businesses many years after he sold the clothing stores. There was real estate and rental properties. Also there were Coal Syndicates, Rock Run Fuel and Gas, Silica Brick, Brazilian Turpentine, Pittsburgh Asphalt, Pittsburgh Kaolin, U.S. Coal and Coke Company. And, of course, United States Investment Company which was his own holding corporation, then later used to handle Watch Tower Society assets.
Also, there were his interests in the Solon Society promoted in the Watch Tower, for which Russell was accused of defrauding some of the brethren. And, the better known issue of selling bags of wheat seeds through the Watch Tower whose claims for it were obviously exaggerated.
Also, even before I read the Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports, which reviewed 150 pages of previous testimony in 1908 when C.T.Russell appealed his loss, I was already in agreement with what I later read that the Superior Court concluded:
". . . the verdict [against CTR] was fully warranted . . . . His course of conduct toward his wife evidenced such insistent egotism and extravagant self-praise that it would be manifest to the jury that his conduct towards her was one of continual arrogant domination, that would necessarily render the life of any sensitive Christian woman a burden and make her condition intolerable. The indignities offered to her in treating her as a menial in the presence of servants, intimating that she was of unsound mind, and that she was under the influence of designing and wicked persons fully warranted her withdrawal from his house, and justified her fear than he intended to further humiliate her by a threat to resort to legal proceedings to test her sanity. There is not a syllable in the testimony to justify his repeated aspersions on her character or her mental condition . . . other than that she did not agree with him in his views . . . He himself says that she is a woman of high intellectual qualities and of perfect moral character . . . the general effect of his testimony is a strong confirmation of her allegations."
And of course, Russell had already tried to smear her reputation in the pages of the Watchtower itself. The pettiness of those Watch Tower articles has always bothered me. It's widely known I think that it was his wife who did a lot of the work and even the writing of "Divine Plan of the Ages" and perhaps large parts of additional volumes, yet when Russell sent men to kick her out of her living quarters, Russell also took her money and kept her purse, which would force her into the care of the same people (relatives) that Russell claimed (in the Watch Tower) were the bad influences on her sanity.
Instead of paying her alimony, even as appreciation for her work on the Studies Volume that sold about 5 million copies, Russell ended up letting Watch Tower readers take up a collection to pay her and the court costs. In 1909, he emptied the money from the Pennsylvania corporation and transferred about $300,000 in value to the New York Corporation and all of his personal investments were now held by the NY corporation. Therefore he claimed that he didn't have a penny to give her.
None of these specific issues will mean much on their own, due to the nature of divorce cases and the like. But, in my opinion, when you combine the probability of uncontested testimony with his more obvious perjury in court, and the fact that he still refused to give his ex-wife alimony after losing the case, it tells me that he wasn't actually as "justified" as he claimed to be. (By "justified from birth" Russell said that he meant he didn't have the same need for contrition since he was free of purposeful sin.)
This is off the original topic of Russell's apology, to be sure, but I haven't found it yet. And I think that some of this information will be relevant even when I do find it.
Also, this doesn't mean we can't appreciate Russell's excellent Bible commentary and emphasis on Christian doctrines and Christian character. It reminds me of when Jesus said:
(Matthew 23:2, 3) “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the seat of Moses. Therefore, all the things they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds, for they say but they do not practice what they say.

You don't have to be concerned. Russell himself is not important to me at all. But I take the current doctrines seriously. We are to pay attention to ourselves and to our doctrines according to the Bible.  And if we truly take the doctrines seriously, we will be noble-minded and question them. Otherwise we are merely following men. 
(1 Timothy 4:15, 16) 15 Ponder over these things; be absorbed in them, . . . 16 Pay constant attention to yourself and to your teaching. Persevere in these things. . .
One of those current teachings is that Russell and his associates embarked on a clean-up and restoration work that was actually prophesied in the Bible in Malachi 3. We are to teach that the work Russell was involved in and wrote about actually got the attention of Jesus Christ around the year 1914. That doctrine has huge implications. If true, it means that we can learn something more about the "mind of Christ" in our own time by looking at what Jesus looked at, to see if we can identify what Jesus must have seen.
(1 Corinthians 2:15-16)  However, the spiritual man examines all things, but he himself is not examined by any man. 16 For “who has come to know the mind of Jehovah, so that he may instruct him?” But we do have the mind of Christ.
For me, if I didn't look into and really "ponder" this doctrine, it would mean that I don't really care to know something that could perhaps be easily knowable about the mind of Christ.
And the penultimate upshot of what I have discovered is that Russell was generally a careful student of the Bible on every single Bible topic except chronology. On chronology Russell got absolutely no date and therefore no prediction right. But this should be as expected, based on Jesus' words in Matthew 24 (the whole chapter) and Acts 1:6-8.
Not even the angels could, who had (perhaps) billions of years of experience knowing more about the mind and activities of Jehovah and Jesus. So how could a sinful man like Russell expect to know? What is left, after the failed chronology, is a combination of doctrinal teachings that I have not seen in that particular combination among any other group of Christians. Perhaps it exists, and perhaps someone will point it out if it does. I prefer to associate with a group related in the faith on that particular combination. I can overlook the chronology.
But I still think his work was ultimately blessed by attracting people who were (mostly) first attracted by the dates and the supposed (but false) knowledge about the chronology, yet had to learn the hard way that Jesus was correct about chronology. Those who stay, after that chronology dross gets filtered by disappointment, are now typically more honest-hearted, and are now staying for the good news of the kingdom itself, staying for the joy of brotherhood, the love, and encouraging one another to hang in their for the more important reasons. If you don't see love in the brotherhood for the "right" reasons, I'm not going to convince you.
You and I are both in the habit of finding straws (faults) in the eyes of the organization, but you seem anxious to grasp at any straw and see everything from only the fault-finding side. I believe I see a bigger picture here. There was probably a time when you did, too. Surely it wasn't just the wrong things that attracted you to stay in the first place.
Up to there I probably could survive Tom's judicial hearing intact. But the actual ultimate upshot (not the penultimate) of what I have learned is that "Russell and Associates" could not have actually been the forerunner of a restored and cleansed organization in 1919. That doesn't mean that Jehovah didn't make use of the progress made. Jehovah would be pleased with people declaring the good news about a kingdom that will restore a paradise and bring all creation back into Jehovah's original purpose. And the brotherhood has promoted the correction of some of the most major confusing and even God-dishonoring doctrines, taught by probably 95% of Christendom.
I would not look for a specific "inflection point" that identified any organization as the true religion. I just see progress. Russell's day saw it. And just as we claim, "1918 to 1919" saw good progress. But perhaps 1919 progress was less important in that year than, say, "1878 to 1879" or "1881 to 1882" or "1909 to 1910" or "1929 to 1930" and "1941 to 1942" and "2000 to 2001."
Perhaps a specific "leap of progress" hasn't even happened yet, but I continue to expect more of our brotherhood in the future. I think that we currently look back on our own history much more often than necessary. 
(Luke 9:62) .62 Jesus said to him: “No man who has put his hand to a plow and looks at the things behind is well-suited for the Kingdom of God.”
One of the reasons I like to share what I find when I "ponder" our current teachings about the WTS past, is to point out that looking to the past doesn't get us anywhere. We have more and better reasons to look to the future.
On your points about Rutherford, I agree that Russell was not a JW in any modern sense. Rutherford was hardly ever one either. But Rutherford was a Bible Student. Rutherford definitely apostasized from Russell's Bible Students, especially from 1928 to 1930. Then again, Russell himself apostasized from the larger Rochester group that his Allegheny/Pittsburgh group had once joined:
*** w55 1/1 pp. 7-8 Part 1—Early Voices (1870-1878) ***
As a result the Pittsburgh Bible group of nearly thirty decided to affiliate with the Rochester group slightly larger in number. Russell became a joint editor along with Barbour for The Herald of the Morning. The Pittsburgh group on Russell’s initiative agreed to finance a small printing place in Rochester for the joint printing undertakings. . . . . After two years of affiliation a testing occurred that brought about a parting of the ways. . . . Months of argument ensued in publishing articles in the Herald pro and con on the ransom issue. Finally the Pittsburgh Bible group withdrew association from the Barbour group to undertake a separate Bible publishing work. Many of the Rochester group sided in with Russell and his associates on the ransom issue and they too came over to the Pittsburgh association.

I believe that I probably won't discover any specific "apology" from Russell for any predictions made for the years 1874, 1878 and 1881. Or at least it won't be found in things he wrote within a few years of those predictions. It's possible he reviewed these types of predictions closer to the 1890's or later, but this seems unlikely, based on his attitude toward the chronology doctrines that he held for the rest of his life.
If such an apology is to be found, it seems more likely to me now that it would be in the 1910 and 1914 period, meaning some time between October 1914 and Russell's death in October 1916. I will temporarily skip my review from January 1890 to about 1910, and go straight to the 1910 through 1914 predictions. (Then, if nothing shows up there, I'll go back to review 1890 to 1910.)
First, in the context of Russell's attitudes towards these dates, or even his attitude and beliefs about himself, there is another consideration we should think about:
Are Russell's attitudes and beliefs really so different than what we should expect if he were really doing the important work as a "forerunner" to restore true worship in late 19th and early 20th century?
Wouldn't any such person at least appear to be immodest, or even presumptuous? How else would that person be able to promote at least a nucleus of converts to true worship? He would surely have to announce a proper path and distinguish his teachings and warn against the improper path. Isn't this what John the Baptist did?
We already know that just like John the Baptizer, we would expect a lot of people to reject that preparatory message due to John's personal peculiarities. Perhaps those same peculiarities attracted people to John's preaching, too. Or, in John's case, there was even the difficult geographic and physical circumstances of the mostly deserted area where John preached and baptized.
So even if we can criticize Russell's human peculiarities and chronology blunders, isn't there something we should be able to identify that indicates Jehovah's blessing on this work. What would we look for specifically, to convince us that Jehovah blessed his work and efforts?
(For those who get the wrong idea from these questions, the WTS does not claim that it was Russell personally who was the forerunner who prepared the way for the restoration of true worship. It's the work that centered around Russell and his associates, not Russell or those associates themselves.)

You like it when I say something that's different from what most of us believe, and you often immediately think I somehow proven that the WT or GB or other JWs are wrong, just because what I say "goes against the grain."
But I would not stay if it were really a den of immorality and lies. You know as well as I do that we get good Biblical counsel and practical advice about how to apply this counsel. You used to harp on the CSA issues constantly, and it seemed like you were ready to bring it up even if the topic was politics or science. I don't think JWs are the best or the worst religious organization, and I don't think that this type of comparison is even valid. After all, Jesus associated with sinners, prostitutes, tax collectors, etc., because those were the kind of people who knew they had a spiritual need to help overcome their sinful, fleshly issues and desires. If people get the right counsel, it's not the fault of the counselor when the person goes their own way. 
This doesn't mean I won't keep looking for ways that I think we can improve our processes for spiritually based admonition, discipline and justice.
And we've been through this before on the topic of lying. A person can say something untrue, and it doesn't mean they are deliberately lying. Were you actually "lying" when you taught people certain JW doctrines that you now believe are untrue?
When the WTS admits they were wrong about a teaching and they change it, they do this out of a desire to get it right. That's true even if they still have it wrong. It's about motive. I think a very few things are wrong out of most things that are right, but I don't think anyone taking the lead is purposely lying about the teachings that I think are wrong. However, in a stricter Biblical sense, due to human imperfection even in our motives, "every man is a liar:"
(Psalm 146:3) . . .Do not put your trust in princes Nor in a son of man, who cannot bring salvation.
(Romans 3:4) . . .But let God be found true, even if every man be found a liar, just as it is written:. . .
But then, this is true even of the apostles Paul, Peter, James, John, and any other "True Anointed" as long as they are on the earth as humans.

I will answer for Tom:
(Notice, no overlapping generation there 😀)
God. We worship the one true and Almighty God, the Creator, whose name is Jehovah. (Psalm 83:18; Revelation 4:11) He is the God of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus.—Exodus 3:6; 32:11; John 20:17.
Bible. We recognize the Bible as God’s inspired message to humans. (John 17:17; 2 Timothy 3:16) We base our beliefs on all 66 of its books, which include both the “Old Testament” and the “New Testament.” Professor Jason D. BeDuhn aptly described it when he wrote that Jehovah’s Witnesses built “their system of belief and practice from the raw material of the Bible without predetermining what was to be found there.” *
While we accept the entire Bible, we are not fundamentalists. We recognize that parts of the Bible are written in figurative or symbolic language and are not to be understood literally.—Revelation 1:1.
Jesus. We follow the teachings and example of Jesus Christ and honor him as our Savior and as the Son of God. (Matthew 20:28; Acts 5:31) Thus, we are Christians. (Acts 11:26) However, we have learned from the Bible that Jesus is not Almighty God and that there is no Scriptural basis for the Trinity doctrine.—John 14:28.
The Kingdom of God. This is a real government in heaven, not a condition in the hearts of Christians. It will replace human governments and accomplish God’s purpose for the earth. (Daniel 2:44; Matthew 6:9, 10) It will take these actions soon, for Bible prophecy indicates that we are living in “the last days.”—2 Timothy 3:1-5; Matthew 24:3-14.
Jesus is the King of God’s Kingdom in heaven. He began ruling in 1914.—Revelation 11:15.
Salvation. Deliverance from sin and death is possible through the ransom sacrifice of Jesus. (Matthew 20:28; Acts 4:12) To benefit from that sacrifice, people must not only exercise faith in Jesus but also change their course of life and get baptized. (Matthew 28:19, 20; John 3:16; Acts 3:19, 20) A person’s works prove that his faith is alive. (James 2:24, 26) However, salvation cannot be earned—it comes through “the undeserved kindness of God.”—Galatians 2:16, 21.
Heaven. Jehovah God, Jesus Christ, and the faithful angels reside in the spirit realm. * (Psalm 103:19-21; Acts 7:55) A relatively small number of people—144,000—will be resurrected to life in heaven to rule with Jesus in the Kingdom.—Daniel 7:27; 2 Timothy 2:12; Revelation 5:9, 10; 14:1, 3.
Earth. God created the earth to be mankind’s eternal home. (Psalm 104:5; 115:16; Ecclesiastes 1:4) God will bless obedient people with perfect health and everlasting life in an earthly paradise.—Psalm 37:11, 34.
Evil and suffering. These began when one of God’s angels rebelled. (John 8:44) This angel, who after his rebellion was called “Satan” and “Devil,” persuaded the first human couple to join him, and the consequences have been disastrous for their descendants. (Genesis 3:1-6; Romans 5:12) In order to settle the moral issues raised by Satan, God has allowed evil and suffering, but He will not permit them to continue forever.
Death. People who die pass out of existence. (Psalm 146:4; Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10) They do not suffer in a fiery hell of torment.
God will bring billions back from death by means of a resurrection. (Acts 24:15) However, those who refuse to learn God’s ways after being raised to life will be destroyed forever with no hope of a resurrection.—Revelation 20:14, 15.
Family. We adhere to God’s original standard of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, with sexual immorality being the only valid basis for divorce. (Matthew 19:4-9) We are convinced that the wisdom found in the Bible helps families to succeed.—Ephesians 5:22–6:1.
Our worship. We do not venerate the cross or any other images. (Deuteronomy 4:15-19; 1 John 5:21) Key aspects of our worship include the following:
Praying to God.—Philippians 4:6.
Reading and studying the Bible.—Psalm 1:1-3.
Meditating on what we learn from the Bible.—Psalm 77:12.
Meeting together to pray, study the Bible, sing, express our faith, and encourage fellow Witnesses and others.—Colossians 3:16; Hebrews 10:23-25.
Preaching the “good news of the Kingdom.”—Matthew 24:14.
Helping those in need.—James 2:14-17.
Constructing and maintaining Kingdom Halls and other facilities used to further our worldwide Bible educational work.—Psalm 127:1.
Sharing in disaster relief.—Acts 11:27-30.
Our organization. We are organized into congregations, each of which is overseen by a body of elders. However, the elders do not form a clergy class, and they are unsalaried. (Matthew 10:8; 23:8) We do not practice tithing, and no collections are ever taken at our meetings. (2 Corinthians 9:7) All our activities are supported by anonymous donations.
The Governing Body, a small group of mature Christians who serve at our world headquarters, provides direction for Jehovah’s Witnesses worldwide.—Matthew 24:45.
Our unity. We are globally united in our beliefs. (1 Corinthians 1:10) We also work hard to have no social, ethnic, racial, or class divisions. (Acts 10:34, 35; James 2:4) Our unity allows for personal choice, though. Each Witness makes decisions in harmony with his or her own Bible-trained conscience.—Romans 14:1-4; Hebrews 5:14.
Our conduct. We strive to show unselfish love in all our actions. (John 13:34, 35) We avoid practices that displease God, including the misuse of blood by taking blood transfusions. (Acts 15:28, 29; Galatians 5:19-21) We are peaceful and do not participate in warfare. (Matthew 5:9; Isaiah 2:4) We respect the government where we live and obey its laws as long as these do not call on us to disobey God’s laws.—Matthew 22:21; Acts 5:29.
Our relationships with others. Jesus commanded: “You must love your neighbor as yourself.” He also said that Christians “are no part of the world.” (Matthew 22:39; John 17:16) So we try to “work what is good toward all,” yet we remain strictly neutral in political affairs and avoid affiliation with other religions. (Galatians 6:10; 2 Corinthians 6:14) However, we respect the choices that others make in such matters.—Romans 14:12.
https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/jehovah-witness-beliefs/

RUSSELL CLAIMS TO BE THE FAITHFUL AND DISCREET SLAVE
In discussing Russell as "God's mouthpiece," the most quoted passage from Russell was left out of the last post.
In the Watch Tower, May 1890, p. R1214, this is part of a lengthy review of WT/Russell history by Russell himself.]
No, the truths we present, as God's mouthpieces, were not revealed in visions or dreams, nor by God's audible voice, nor all at once, but gradually, especially since 1870, and particularly since 1880, a period of about twenty years. And this present clear unfolding of truth is not due to any human ingenuity or acuteness of perception, but to the simple fact that God's due time has come, and if we did not speak and no other agent could be found, the very stones would cry out.  . . .  I [Russell] told [the Lord] that I realized that he was the Shepherd, and not I, but that I knew also that he would be pleased at any interest in the sheep, and my desire to be his mouthpiece to declare the truth, the way and the life to them; that I felt deeply impressed that if the time had come for the permission of a false view to deceive the unworthy, it must also be his due time to have the truth on the same subject made clear, that the worthy ones might be enabled to stand, and not fall from the truth.
The rewrite of the same article in the Watch Tower, July 15, 1906, p.R3821 might be explained by the fact that between those two articles, the "faithful slave" was no longer a class, but now a single, individual human. Note the change from "truths we present, as God's mouthpieces" to "truths I present, as God's mouthpiece:"
No, the truths I present, as God's mouthpiece, were not revealed in visions or dreams, nor by God's audible voice, nor all at once, but gradually, especially since 1870, and particularly since 1880. Neither is this clear unfolding of truth due to any human ingenuity or acuteness of perception, but to the simple fact that God's due time has come; and if I did not speak, and no other agent could be found, the very stones would cry out. . . . I  [Russell] went to the Lord with this as with every trial, told him just how it seemed to me, how anxious I felt for his dear "sheep," who, having their appetites sharpened by some truth, were by their very hunger exposed to Satan's deceptions. I told him that I realized that he was the Shepherd, and not I, but that I knew also that he would be pleased at my interest in the sheep and my desire to be his mouthpiece to declare the truth, the way and the life to them; that I felt deeply impressed that if the time had come for the permission of a false view to deceive the unworthy, it must also be his due time to have the truth on the same subject made clear, that the worthy ones might be enabled to stand, and not fall from the truth.
The change in the "faithful slave" (aka "that servant") doctrine became official in 1896. It was supposedly promoted without Russell's direct permission a few months earlier by his wife. But if we look more closely at some of Russell's own writings prior to 1896, especially in letters from others that he published about himself, we can see a transitioning toward that teaching.
In a very early Watch Tower, October 1880, p. R149, contributor W. I. Mann wrote an article where he said:
"Therefore, be ye (ye brethren) also ready; for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of Man comes." This was fulfilled. It was months after Christ came (in Fall of '74) before the company realized it. "Who, then, is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give meat in due season? Blessed is that servant, whom his lord, HAVING COME (elthon), shall find so doing." Was there such a servant? Of course, we do not understand that it means one individual, but evidently a small company . . .
Russell evidently agreed with this, as shown in the Watch Tower, November 1881, p. R291:
"Who then is that faithful and wise servant whom his Lord hath made ruler over his household," to give them meat in due season? Is it not that "little flock" of consecrated servants who are faithfully carrying out their consecration vows--the body of Christ-- and is not the whole body individually and collectively, giving the meat in due season to the household of faith--the great company of believers?
The hints, even when officially understood as a class, may have started as early as 1882 (the third year of the Watch Tower), by regularly calling the Watch Tower articles "meat in due season," "food for thinking Christians," edification for the household of faith, etc. The following is from November 1882, p.R548:
Blessed is that servant whom his Lord when he cometh shall find giving meat in due season to the household. (Matt. 24:45,46.) We should be specially interested in making it known to every consecrated child of God, many of whom are almost starved. You may have for the asking abundance of reading matter for free distribution.
But the more "official" change was in the Watch Tower, March 1, 1896, p. R1946:
In our examination of this text we seem to have treated the term "that servant" as though the Spirit had erred in saying "that servant" when it meant servants (plural), and we applied it to all true servants of God. Since then we have been met from various quarters with objections to so general an application, and the suggestion that it would be wrong to allow modesty or any other consideration, good or bad, to warp our judgment in the exposition of the inspired Word; to which proposition we agree . . . It is further suggested that whoever occupies the position of "that servant" occupies a place of special danger, as well as of special privilege; that only by humility and faithfulness can he continue; and that, although not so stated in the Scriptures, it may be inferred that if the chosen one should fail, another would be chosen to be "that servant" or steward through whom the Master would continue to supply the "meat in due season" to those deemed worthy to continue at his table
A repetition of those ideas was made in April 15, 1904 p.R3355-6:
"THE FAITHFUL AND THE WISE STEWARD." We would naturally enough endeavor to interpret our Lord's words as signifying a composite steward-- that is that a certain number or class of brethren together would constitute the steward of this parable. In endeavoring to make such an interpretation we are met with several difficulties, however. (1) To suppose such a class in the Church would be to recognize what is elsewhere denied--to recognize a clerical or authoritative class as distinct and separate from the remainder of the Church, because this steward is to dispense the meat in due season to the household, to the fellow-servants. The Church of Christ, we hold, is not composed of clergy and laity, but "ye are all one in Christ Jesus, and one is your Master, even Christ." There would be no violation of principle, however, in supposing that the Lord at the time indicated 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; because at various times in the past the Lord has used individuals in such a manner. For instance, Peter used the "keys" of the Kingdom of heaven at Pentecost, and again at the home of Cornelius, and in both places he was used as a special servant in connection with the dispensing of special truths. This did not constitute Peter a lord over the other apostles or over the Church, but merely a servant. (2) However much we might endeavor to apply this figure to the Lord's people collectively, the fact would still remain that the various items stated would not fit to a company of individuals.. . . but since the servant mentioned is to dispense food to the other members of the body, his fellow-servants, the term seems to be limited to some particular individual.
In the meantime, of course, Russell had printed many letters from persons who acknowledged Russell himself as "that servant" (individually) and Russell spoke of his writings as fulfilling the "food at the proper time" ("meat in due season") to the household of faith. The long quotes in the previous post from 1895 about the study of the MILLENNIAL DAWN books shows this clearly. That idea also matches another often quoted reference of Russell to his own books which nearly equate them with the Bible itself, as he said in the Watch Tower, September 15, 1910, p.R4685:
If the six volumes of SCRIPTURE STUDIES are practically the Bible topically arranged, with Bible proof-texts given, we might not improperly name the volumes-- the Bible in an arranged form. That is to say, they are not merely comments on the Bible, but they are practically the Bible itself, . . . Furthermore, not only do we find that people cannot see the Divine Plan in studying the Bible by itself, but we see, also, that if anyone lays the SCRIPTURE STUDIES aside, even after he has used them, after he has become familiar with them, after he has read them for ten years --if he then lays them aside and ignores them and goes to the Bible alone, though he has understood his Bible for ten years, our experience shows that within two years he goes into darkness. On the other hand, if he had merely read the SCRIPTURE STUDIES with their references, and had not read a page of the Bible, as such, he would be in the light at the end of the two years, because he would have the light of the Scriptures.
Just months after his death, the Watch Tower said that Russell only claimed to be the "faithful and wise servant" in private, p.R5998.
It is here interesting to note that Jesus said, "Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his Lord hath made ruler over His Household, to give them meat in due season? Blessed is that servant, whom his Lord, when He cometh, shall find so doing! Verily I say unto you that He shall make him ruler over all His goods." Thousands of the readers of Pastor Russell's writings believe that he filled the office of "that faithful and wise servant," and that his great work was giving to the Household of Faith meat in due season. His modesty and humility precluded him from openly claiming this title, but he admitted as much in private conversation.
He was probably trying to follow the example of Jesus, which he often commented upon with this idea: (p.R3338)
With his disciples our Lord traveled . . . He did not announce himself publicly to the people there, but his presence soon became known, showing that the fame of his miracles and teachings had spread throughout the whole of Palestine.
And more to the point, p.R3851:
The modesty of our Lord in respect to his Messiahship is noteworthy. Not on a single occasion we know of did he announce himself as Messiah. .  . . In every instance his honor as Messiah was mentioned by others and simply not disputed by the Lord.

So, for 1874, 1878, and 1881, it seems that we can get a pretty good idea of the expectations and the reasons for them.
Barbour and Paton had promoted 1873 and 1874 for the big "change" from physical bodies to spiritual bodies all of Christ's Bride -- but Russell hadn't joined them yet. Russell, Barbour and Paton all (together) vigorously promoted the big "change" for 1878. Barbour promoted 1881 as the year Jesus would appear again, and the year for the big "change." But by then Russell and Paton had separated from Barbour, and Paton didn't expect 1881 to be any different from any other year, except with reference to the natural Jews. And Russell only predicted that the time of wrath and vengeance would begin in 1881, and that Jesus could take his bride from the earth at any time after October 2, 1881, but this didn't mean it would necessarily happen that year. In fact, since all of Christ's Bride who died after October 1881 would now be "changed" immediately upon death, then, for the time being, there was no specific urgent date to look to between 1881 and 1914.  So this is a good place to pause, I think, and spend some time on Russell's own attitude toward these dates, predictions and the value of the chronology in general. It will help us understand why he was sometimes apparently dogmatic, and sometimes apparently not dogmatic.
RUSSELL'S GENERAL VIEW OF THE CHRONOLOGY AND HIS OWN ROLE
Russell regularly spoke of God's "Plan of the Ages." (His wife wanted to call it God's "Eternal Purpose.") Russell promoted 5-feet-wide charts full of timelines and pyramid diagrams that he wanted all Bible Students to hang on their walls to see the beauty of the interlocking "proofs."
Nelson Barbour had indicated that he {Barbour] was filling the role of God's mouthpiece, and the role of the "faithful and wise servant." He indicated that it was through him [Barbour] that he taught Russell everything he knows. But when Russell broke with Barbour, Russell made it clear that Barbour's patronizing attitude toward Russell was not valid.
RUSSELL, CLAIMS HE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED (MADE RIGHTEOUS) THROUGH FAITH, BUT SINCE BIRTH
Rather than think of himself as declared righteous through faith, he thought of himself as someone who was justified from birth. And therefore cannot ever be accused of wilful sin. And therefore it was neither necessary nor appropriate for Russell to feel the contrition necessary for repentance, in the same way as others. Note how dogmatically Russell simply declares himself to be of this class of Christian. (There is no such concept found in the Bible.) The following is from the Watch Tower, November 1, 1904, p.R3456:
In re justification; we believe that quite a good many Christians were born in a justified condition, and that the sentiments of their hearts always were for righteousness, and that therefore they cannot accuse themselves of having sinned wilfully, nor feel such great contrition as those who have been living in sin--in alienation from God. Nor should they. They are already the Lord's, and for them to be converted (turned round) would mean to turn away from the Lord. The Editor is one of this class.
RUSSELL AS GOD'S MOUTHPIECE
Russell saw himself as God's mouthpiece for the purpose of gathering anointed ones and preparing them to meet the Bridegroom. He said that he saw his own ministry, not to the poor, or even to the great crowd of anointed who would come out of the great tribulation but only to the "little flock" of anointed who were Christ's Bride, the "Church." Later, of course, after the expected change did not happen so quickly and early as expected, Russell began to see that the entire Bride Class should also be a "mouthpiece" for the kingdom to teach the great crowd.
And when Russell used the term "mouthpiece" he also showed what he thought it meant starting in the very first issue of the WT:
When Paul used these words he was God's mouthpiece, therefore the word is God's. . . [Watch Tower, July 1879, p.R11]
And in the very next issue, Russell creates an imaginary dialogue in which he speaks of himself as a potential mouthpiece of God:
You are anxious, then, to find the connecting links in the great chain which binds the interests of humanity to the throne of God. . . . If it should please Him to use me as His mouthpiece, it will be a great privilege. [Watch Tower, August 1879, p.R13]
Russell associated "mouthpieces" with God's prophets, etc.
As "God in times past spake unto the fathers through the prophets," who were His mouthpieces . . . [p. R196]
It's not fair, as many have done, to claim that Russell indicated he was God's only  mouthpiece for his day and age. Russell didn't just make it about himself, personally, but he did teach that a new, special mouthpiece was then needed, and this was directly related to the break that the Watch Tower had made with other "Christian" churches in 1878, when Babylon the Great had begun to fall.
After three and one-half years (in 1878) he rejected or left desolate the nominal church here, as he had done in the "shadow," saying, "Because thou are neither cold nor hot I will spew thee out of my mouth." (Rev. 3:16). The Jewish church was God's mouthpiece until "left desolate," but from that time forward God's truth came through another channel. So here the gospel church has been God's recognized channel of truth, or mouthpiece, but are such, we believe, no longer. Truth will now come through other channels. Since 1878 (and never before that) we have felt at liberty to call God's children out of the nominal churches to a position of freedom and liberty. . . .
To Russell, he biggest difference between the gospel Church (Babylon), including Second Adventists, etc., was no longer doctrines like restitution and consecration, though still important The most important key was now the "time element." And this "time element" (chronology) had been raised by the Adventists, but was not even dropped by most of them, so that is now what made the Watch Tower's teaching separate from others, who could no longer be God's mouthpiece. The same Watch Tower article from November 1881, "The Blessed Dying" mentioned in a previous post, also included these statements:
You will recall that up to 1878, though Restitution was the key note, and entire consecration was always urged, yet the time element was one of the most prominent features always. Since 1878, however, though the same time element is recognized in all our preaching and teaching, and is repeatedly referred to as a proof of our position, yet the direct teaching of time has almost stopped among all the preaching brethren-- . . . It was in the spring of 1879, that seeing clearly the parallelism between the nominal Jewish church and the nominal Gospel church, we were enabled to know just where the latter was finally rejected of the Lord and spewed out of His mouth (Rev. 3:16) no longer to be his mouthpiece. We saw that this was due in 1878, as the parallel of the rejection of the Jewish church,
So, Jehovah's new mouthpiece would be identified at the right time due to the time element, and also by preaching the time element. That same November 1881 issue made it clear that Paul had been a mouthpiece, Luther had been  mouthpiece, and now "we" are his mouthpiece. In January 1882, Russell added that the Catholics, the Anglicans, Methodists, and Lutherans, by backing the Evangelical Alliance, etc., were now mouthpieces for the Image of the Beast.
Now the various sects have a sort of backing in this organization, and each may act as the mouthpiece of the Image . . . [p. R322]
[BTW, I hadn't noticed previously that this 1881 idea about the Evangelical Alliance was the forerunner of the later parallel teaching about how the World Council of Churches gave support to the League of Nations, when that entity (the League) became identified with the Image of the Beast.]
If it be asked, in what sense does [Jesus] teach? we answer, by exercising the qualities of the head, or teacher; by using one or more of those present as His mouthpiece in unfolding truth, strengthening faith, encouraging hope, inspiring zeal, etc. [p. R407]
We may search the Scriptures in vain for an instance of Gods sending through such a channel. He hath raised up a new mouthpiece. He sheds increasing light to a little flock who are willing to receive it, and spread it abroad without fear. [p. R505]
We are not ashamed to be the Lord's mouthpieces in this timely but unpopular message: and what timely truth has not been unpopular? [p. R986]
Russell, as he had often done already, printed letters supportive of his own position as God's mouthpiece:
. . .through fear that I would appear to give glory to man rather than to God, from whom I am sensible that the light really comes. Still I realize that it is due you, as God's willing agent in distributing the light. . . I saw a reference to Millennial Dawn in a secular paper. I at once ordered the book. . . Since then I have eagerly read every thing I could get from your pen: . . . Hoping that you may, in the future as in the past, be blessed and honored of God as his mouthpiece, I remain, yours in the glorious hope, L. A. WEATHERLY. [p. R1439]
In Russell's promotion of the "DAWN Study Circles" to study the Millennial Dawn material, Russell made the following comments, showing that he thought of his books, the MILLENNIAL DAWN itself, as "God's mouthpiece." [Watch Tower, September 15, 1895, p.R1867-R1869]
Those who have come to an understanding of the plan of the ages, recognize it as of divine and not of human origination. . . . We give all praise and honor to the Divine Author from whom cometh every good and perfect gift, and who thus, according to his promise (Luke 12:37), continues to feed his Church with spiritual "meat in due season." God, still our Teacher, uses as heretofore instrumentalities, and has provided for his people's instruction and use the orderly presentations of MILLENNIAL DAWN to point out to them his plan of the ages and the duties and privileges of this "harvest" time; because the "due time" has come for "the mystery" to be finished. (Rev. 10:7.) And those who have received instruction in the Word, in private, through the use of MILLENNIAL DAWN as a teacher sent of God (Eph. 4:11-14) have no more reason to ignore it as God's mouthpiece in united study than in their own private study;--no more, either, than they would a living teacher. And should any be disposed to worship the humble human instrumentality chosen of God as the channel for this blessing of present truth, we say to such,--"See thou do it not; for I am thy fellow servant [not thy Lord], and [fellow servant] of thy brethren the prophets [all true teachers or mouthpieces of God]:...Worship God." (Rev. 22:9.) The water of life and the Giver of it, and not the earthen vessel through which it is sent, are to be reverenced. The earthen vessels have naught whereof to glory. What have we of ourselves that we did not first receive of the Lord?--1 Cor. 4:6,7. The God-given plan of the ages is what we should all use in the study of the Bible, if we would get the treasures of wisdom, and grace, and strength for service in these perilous harvest times, for which it is divinely provided. Each one who recognizes this as a God-given light should use it in the study of the Word. Each should make it his own light as God intended. Each should become so proficient in its use as to be able to answer every question that could be asked respecting the general plan of God. But alas! some seem to feel that this is Brother Russell's plan, and that they should originate their own. But this is a great mistake. It is not our plan, but God's. If not God's plan, it is of no value. We do not want any human plans. Surely men cannot make plans for God that he will recognize; for his own plans have been since "before the foundation of the world." God has but one plan, and it is unalterable; and now that he has revealed it, we confess that it is wonderful, yet as simple as it is beautiful. It is a plan, however, that men could not conceive or arrange. Its thoughts are higher than man's thoughts; and hence in all the centuries past men have never even approximated this divine plan of the ages. So then the Bible, the standard, should be studied in the light of this God-given teaching, until each one is proficient --an able teacher of it. Then each should let his light shine--humbly serving it to others. Some, alas! when their eyes are opened to see God's loving plan of the ages, while surprised, and thankful to God for the present truth, neglect to do more than hastily taste of it; and then they hasten on, as they say, to "hunt for more." What they should do would better be to use well what God has already given us as his people. . . . We certainly have no right to ask for more or other blessings, until we have feasted to the full on what has been set before us. Then we should exercise ourselves, using the strength received in serving the feast to others. . . . The proper attitude for the Church is to be active in eating the food already received and in using the strength derived from it. She is not to leave the table bountifully spread to pray for more. When more would be beneficial more will be sent by the hand of some "servant" of God and the Church. Nor will the true "servant" find it necessary to make the food; for it will be given him by the great Householder. It will be "found" by him, and when he presents it to the Lord's family, they will be able to discern upon it the stamp of divine truth. And after partaking of it liberally they will dispense it to others. Sufficient labor for all comes after we have "found" the truth,--labor in eating it, studying and appropriating it, and labor in serving it to others. . . . . Let us remember, however, that we cannot break open any secrets which God may wish to conceal as not yet appropriate "meat in due season"; nor should we wish to do so. The small boy who bangs away at the unripe apple until it falls get food which makes him very sick. . . Our diligence should be rather to watch the ripening processes of divine providence, and to hold our minds and hearts in humble readiness .  . . .It is the Word of God that is to be eaten; the DAWNS and TOWERS are divinely provided helps for the cutting of the food into eatable portions,--enabling us to "rightly divide the Word of truth," and thus facilitating the eating of it. Such meetings for the study of the Word in the light of the now revealed plan of the ages have been termed "Dawn Circles." . . . We advise the holding of these Circles everywhere, and suggest that you invite to them only such as are believers . . .any . . .who is desirous of learning the way of God more perfectly. . . .you do not meet to discuss the unbeliever's doubts, but to confirm the believer's faith.. . .It is advisable that the leader be a good reader, and that he begin at the beginning of Volume I. He should pause at the end of each sentence, if necessary, to give full opportunity for questions or remarks; and at the close of each paragraph a general discussion of its contents should be encouraged, . . . Each one of the Circle should have in hand some translation of the Bible or a "Dawn." . . . But some one will say, At that rate we would be fully a year in going through the first volume of MILLENNIAL DAWN, and the three volumes would require three years! All the better, we answer. . . .Surely, if the Bible required nearly two thousand years for its preparation, we should give it reverent study, and not merely a casual glance and thought. . . .
R2371:
Thus it is also with those whom the Lord would specially use in his service during this Gospel age. . . to know that there is an opportunity of rendering service to the King of kings is to volunteer their services, to pray that the Lord will grant them a privilege of doing all their talents will fit them to do in his service. Only such are true mouthpieces of the Lord.
R2433:
We seek merely to be, so far as the Shepherd may be pleased to use us, his mouthpiece, to call attention to the Shepherd, and to the way in which he is leading. None should follow us, except as they discern that we are following the Master, as saith the Apostle.
Watch Tower, July 1, 1903, R3214:
Quite a number came from surrounding cities and towns--and more flowers came, too; "alabaster boxes" of sweet odor to the Lord, because really rendered unto him, and to us merely because he had been pleased to use us as his mouthpiece in proclaiming his great plan of the ages in this his due time for revealing it. . . . Faithfully, your brother and servant in the Lord, CHARLES T. RUSSELL

My vision is that the G.B. Please note that the format that we have followed for decades is not the only one. I mean: since there were 3 big annual meetings in Israel, we had three big meetings -assemblies-.
Kissing, hugging, touching, "sniffing" us is biblical and appropriate. But during the week the meeting ends late, the children have to go to school early, they have to have dinner ... Well, why not the meeting during the week for zoom, and the face-to-face weekend, at the k.h.?
Large assemblies could be made voluntary. Brothers eager to meet others, to meet, to embrace, to take photos, to meet potential future spouses... These meetings could be prepared and voluntarily attended (as now international ones)
But those of us who want to listen, learn, those of us who do not have much money, or many children, or sick family members, and who attend an assembly lasting several days involves a great effort and small returns (in terms of learning), because we could have those assemblies in the zoom format, for several weekends, like lately.
It follows from the above that all assembly halls could be sold. Send home hundreds of brothers who are employed to support them. Save thousands of hours of volunteer work preparing assemblies worldwide, save money ...
To keep it short: we would use the best of both worlds. Face-to-face + zoom.
(Sometimes I ask Jehovah to "enlighten the C.G. on this - sure, but I suppose that many, many factors escape me ,,,)

Good analogy. But if you shot yourself in the foot once, would you not be extra careful from then on so you don't shoot yourself in the foot again? I mean if you shot yourself in the foot at least three times after that.....well.....I think you would get called all kinds of names, and most probably everyone would want to take that gun from you! The Generation theory has been expounded on at least three times since that Awake article, and with similar assuredness. It's the assuredness every time that is the problem, not the revision of an opinion. I have nothing against progressive knowledge, and don't expect us to get everything right the first time around, or the second time or third.....however long it takes.
Except for the fundamental truths, the rest is like a jigsaw puzzle and we are still trying to fit the pieces together, in my opinion we have not put together the whole picture yet, although many think we have. 
Studying the pure worship book right now reminds me a little of a silly series on Netflix called Manifest (I'm not saying the pure worship book is silly). It is quite entertaining though, and I like watching it. The characters survived a plane incident but landed 5 years later. Now some of the main characters get "callings" which are usually very vague (like a voice saying "save her" ) and they have no idea what it means. They get some really obscure clues and have to figure it out. Eventually after a series of misinterpretations they get it right by saving the right person. We are trying to interpret Ezekiels prophecy, and I don't think we will really know if we got it all right until  after Armageddon. The holy spirit can keep giving us clues, but we may misinterpret them, and we have misinterpreted them in the past, we just keep moving forward, in the right direction hopefully. My main disappointment is not the mistakes, but stating as fact what are mere interpretations and opinions......

I already said that I have learned not to trust statements made in such a manner. It seems that those who write them have not learned from the past, because they write them in the same way today.
Regardless of historical time frame and differing values etc. saying "we really don't know, but this is our opinion" is never out of fashion. Making bold statements as if they are 100% correct and infallible is neither wise nor discreet.....at any time.

I wonder it this is still being worked on. I am assuming it takes a lot of work to change PDF files to put them into the WOL.
This is probably unrelated here, because it's doctrinal rather than technical, but I want to mention it because I was looking at this recently,and what you said above reminded me of it. 
Awake October 15, 1968
As we see, there are a number of rather embarrassing statements made here. We have all discussed this on this forum many times....the "certainty" of these kind of claims, and how this could quite rightly make us wary of more recent claims of "certainty". In any case, in view of this article, can anyone be blamed for being skeptical?  I would love to pose this question to the members of the GB, with the attached Awake. This Awake is not even the last one that mentioned the adjusted Generation concept, there were subsequent WTs as late as 1995 (I think) that revised our understanding. (I am not even talking about the overlapping generation, which I think was first mentioned in 2008) But of course all these are available on WOL
(In case anyone is interested, if you want to access pre 1970 Awakes and pre 1950 WT and many other publications not found in WOL this is s good website:
https://archive.org/details/WatchtowerLibrary
 

By WOL I mean the Watchtower Online Library via JW.ORG ( https://wol.jw.org/en/wol )
I'm sure that a lot of us got very used to doing the Bible reading on the computer screen through the Watchtower Library "CD" because we could turn our NWT into a Study Bible so easily. All we had to do was simply click on the verse number and get instant access to the WT Publications Index for either 1930-1985 or the more recent one (now, 1986-2021).
I was pleasantly surprised recently when I clicked on the verse number and got a link to a book that hadn't been linked before. (Pre-1970 Awake! and pre-1971 books and pre-1950 Watchtowers are still not linked.)
See it?


So I checked the WOL, and it's there, too, of course!

The wol.jw.org is better because you get both the indexes in only one click, and you also don't have to use a pull-down menu to choose between them. They just come right up into the right-hand column. And it's also closer to the format of the new Study Bible.
The additional book, is "ad" -- Aid to Bible Understanding from 1971.
The Aid book is rarely much different from the Insight book, but there are times when it gives a more historical perspective, more information from outside commentaries and supporting Bible dictionaries, and sometimes a less dogmatic or more "neutral" perspective. I've found that most entries still don't have even a single word changed between Aid and Insight. But now and then the differences are useful:
Take for example a question about "Dodanim" vs. "Rodanim." The Aid book's entry for "Rodanim" is twice as long as Insight.
And sometimes the differences are major:
Take for example the Aid book article under "Faithful and Discreet Slave." This article in the Insight book was almost identical to the Aid book when it first came out, but the Insight article has since been updated when the doctrine changed. (The printed Insight book is different in several places from the online and CD Insight book.)

Someone asked me about why the topic was removed. I could only respond with what I thought had happened.  I answered him publicly so that anyone who knows or thinks it was something different could provide something additional. I didn't say or even imply that I was right. I only said what I thought was probably true. I'll repeat exactly what I said was the probable reason in my opinion:
Also, before I said anything, I wrote to the admin and the Librarian and the response indicated to me that they knew nothing about it, and that the most likely scenario was that BroRando had removed it himself. No one else but BroRando and admin/moderators would have that right. I also messaged a couple of moderators to see if they knew. They didn't. I also made sure that BroRando was aware of my comment so that he could respond if he wished.
To tell you the truth, I saw BroRando's last comment to Srecko and thought it was very much out of character for BroRando, since BroRando rarely presents himself the way he did in that post. It occurred to me at the time that he would probably want to delete that comment as it showed a side of him that he had not really shown before, in my opinion. I wondered if he might delete it when I saw it at 10am in the morning. I didn't get back on the forum again until 8pm that evening, and the entire topic was gone -- all 30-some pages.
I was a bit surprised and wondered if he had deleted the whole thing on purpose when he only meant to delete a specific post of his. Then it also occurred to me that it could have been an accidental error by him, or a purposeful move by an admin, or even a software glitch.
That's why I wrote to The Librarian, moderators and the admin.
The ones who responded said that they knew nothing about it, so I fell back on my original opinion that it was probably because no one was being all that supportive of the 2034 prediction, which was the main point that most people were getting from him on that topic. And I also used my response as an opportunity to admit that I had made a lot of off-topic comments that were not supportive of the theory. In saying that I was taking part of the blame.
I never thought I could prove it, which is why I just gave an opinion. There was no false accusation. It's not I said that his words had shown that he had a real problem with ego, for example. It's not like I claimed that he was not humble and that he was shoving his thoughts down everyone's throat.
I think he has opinions, I have opinions, and you have opinions. If someone feels that others' opinions are wrong, they can express the reasons if they want. Or they can simply say they don't like those other opinions. No one is required to respond to or even read those other opinions.
You told me that I needed to look again for something I hadn't remembered reading before. This doesn't mean that all this rambling and cutting and pasting is for you. I really doubted that anyone would take much of an interest. But as long as I am going through a lot of material again, I thought it best to share what I was finding. Especially because such a review is always an opportunity for me to pick up on several things I hadn't noticed before. And there's always a good chance that several of my conclusions are wrong, so I put a lot of them out their for public scrutiny, where they can be corrected by others.  I'm sure I'll also run across what I missed before (the passage that you saw) and I'd very much like to find it. 

"CHANGE" WOULD NOT TAKE PLACE BEFORE OCTOBER 2, 1881
VENGEANCE EXPECTED IN OCTOBER 1881
The March, April, May, June and July/August issues all mentioned October 1881 as the final year of the high heavenly calling for the Bride of 144,000.  The point was that the 7 years of "favor" (1874-1881) would end. And these were years that had protected the Bride/remnant from having to undergo tribulation during the day of vengeance. The wrath of nations could begin at any time after October 2, 1881.

The July/August issue also had to clarify that there was no direct expectation that the change would happen in October 1881, only that October was the terminus of the prophetic parallel, which ended the opportunity for any more to become members of the 144,000. While all would be "counted, sealed and selected by October" "they may not be changed until some time after.


That last quoted sentence shows that something specific was expected in 1881: "this vengeance."
The September 1881 issue didn't specifically mention October, and except for a mention of 1914 and 1874 here and there, it nearly avoided the topic of chronology altogether. It still mentioned how close they were to the end of the "door of opportunity" to become one of the 144,000:

And although the snippet above makes it look like Russell was asking for money, this was about how much one would be willing to give up for the high calling (144,000), not about how much money one might send to the WTS.
From what I've read elsewhere, the October issue itself was never made and the November issue was called October/November.
Therefore, this "November" issue should now be read very carefully. We won't really expect Russell to offer an apology, because, we recall that he never pushed for an immediate change by October anyway, stating that it would only be some time after October 2, 1881. This could have meant months or even years after.
This issue almost broaches the subject here, below, but without directly mentioning the often misunderstood build-up of October expectations:

That November issue had an article that repeated and clarified the expectation further:
 
It reviews the WT teaching about Matthew 25 and summarizes again, all that was taught about 1874 and 1881. But this time it's different from Paton's earlier article. Now the primary thing that distinguishes the wise and foolish virgins is the acceptance of the "time element" -- the chronology: 1844, 1874, 1878 and 1881.
I'm including many snippets from this article below, because this teaching had such an effect on the nature of the Bible Students right up through the 1930's. I have a letter from Rutherford in the 1920's to someone who had asked about being recently anointed to the 144,000 and Rutherford pointed back this article to show how the "door to the high calling had been shut in 1881" but that it was possible that replacements for unfaithful persons of that high calling were still being chosen. 50 years of such statements seem to have built up a Jonadab class (great crowd) who were repeatedly being told they were less "worthy" and less "consecrated."

Note next that "the disappointment had served an intended purpose" by stumbling those who no longer wanted to be associated with the failed chronology. Those who didn't want to be embarrassed or reproached wanted to distance themselves from the subject of "time." Russell himself had previously admitted to being one of those who was ashamed and embarrassed for the Second Adventists in 1873 and 1874, but he would soon (1876) accept that 1874 was the time to be looking, but not for a visible presence or outward sign.



The December 1881 Watch Tower issue, p.304, includes some interesting admissions, and a change in doctrine about 1881, but no apology. The doctrinal separation also is indicated that the WTS is God's true mouthpiece, as other religious organizations now fall under the category of Babylon the Great and are, since 1878, rejected as God's mouthpiece.
It was in the spring of 1879, that seeing clearly the parallelism between the nominal Jewish church and the nominal Gospel church, we were enabled to know just where the latter was finally rejected of the Lord and spewed out of his mouth (Rev. 3:16.) no longer to be his mouthpiece. We saw that this was due in 1878, as the parallel of the rejection of the Jewish church, when Jesus just prior to his crucifixion, wept over them and said, "Your house is left unto you desolate"-The Jewish church was there likewise cast off, or spewed from his mouth. We were led to see very clearly that the nominal church of the Gospel Age, is the Babylon (confused, mixed condition, of worldly-mindedness and luke warm Christianity) described in Rev. 18:2-4. This spewing out, or casting off, of the nominal church, as an organization in 1878-we then understood, and still proclaim to be the date of the commencement of Babylon's fall, as recorded there. And since then we feel ourselves led of the spirit, through the unfolding of this portion of the word of truth to say in the name of the Lord, to all God's true children in Babylon: "Come out of her my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins and receive not of her plagues." (vs. 4.) This seems to accord wonderfully with the second message--"Babylon is fallen." (Rev. 14:8.)
Then p.308 of the same issue brings up an issue that was becoming more important as time went on, because the WT had indicated that it still agreed with the doctrine that those of the "higher calling" would be protected from death as they waited for their glorification or "rapture." Agreement with this doctrine had been implied in the idea that they would be worthy to escape tribulation in the day of vengeance, but if they continued for months or even years beyond 1881 when the wrath of nations was expected, then what about the idea of not dying?
Q. Dear Bro. Russell, I want to make an inquiry relative to the thought advanced in last number of the paper, viz: That all the members of the body of Christ must die physically; and that the translation takes place in the "moment" of death. [And I must say, that it seems reasonable, and in general harmony with the Scriptures so far as I have studied.] My question is, Does not this application interfere with the Elijah type, at which, for some time we have looked with interest? Elijah did not die; and if he is a type and we the antitype, it would seem to teach that we should not die.
There is a Wikipedia paragraph here that summarizes the issue:
Russell consoled members with the news that 1881 had still marked the time when "death became a blessing" in the sense that any saint who died would henceforth be instantaneously changed into a spirit being.[14] The revised view provided comfort for early believers who had held the view that the living faithful would never experience a physical death, and yet had seen other members in fact dying while they awaited their upward call. After 1881, physical death was defined as one of the ways in which some of the saints might undergo their translation.
The article in November 1881, called "The Blessed Dying" made this period since 1881 very similar to the time period that would later be assigned to 1918 and beyond: the idea that all those who died from that point on would be instantly changed to their glorious bodies.
And here it is, just now--1881, that for the first time we are able to read understandingly the words "Blessed are the dead, who die in the Lord from henceforth." Evidently the blessing is to the members of the Christ now living. But we inquire, in what respect will death be a blessing to us now, that it has not always been to other members of the body. We answer, the difference is that we shall not sleep, but we will be instantly invested with our heavenly--spiritual bodies, being changed in a moment dropping all that is human and earthly and being clothed upon with our heavenly condition.  [p.R304]

1881
When 1878 failed to be the "end of the harvest" and failed to be the time when Russell and his associates received their reward, it might seem natural, in hindsight, that they would now focus on 1881, 3.5 years after the spring of 1878. Yet, Barbour's "Three Worlds" (1877), promoted by Russell, never mentioned 1881. It wasn't important because all of Christ's Bride, the 144,000, would already be in heaven in 1878.
However,  the August 1878 issue of Barbour's "Herald of the Morning" with both Russell and Paton listed on the masthead as assistant editors,  had now adjusted the new "end of the harvest" from 1878 to 1881.

When Russell split with Barbour in 1879, Russell carried that 1881 date with him as the revised "end of the harvest," and the time for the saints to "change" from physical bodies to spiritual bodies. Barbour, on his own, was now going so far as to say that Jesus would appear visibly in 1881, and Paton had also left Barbour and joined Russell's Watch Tower, ready to denounce that particular teaching.
Russell and Paton still agreed (in the Watch Tower) with Barbour's view that Israel would rise in Palestine in 1881, and that a time of trouble and conquest of the nations would begin at about that point, and that this time of trouble (wrath of nations) would not end until 1914. The 144,000 would all be with Christ from 1881, "worthy" to avoid that "time of trouble." And, of course, the "door" for new members of that Bride would obviously become closed to new members starting in 1881. But a great crowd of other Christians would come through that "day of wrath" from 1881 on (to at least 1914) by which time most of this  great crowd would come out of that great tribulation and also (ultimately) be in heaven. (The great crowd were considered to be anointed Christians who would also be in heaven, but not of the "high calling," not sitting on thrones or acting as priests with Jesus Christ their Bridegroom.)
Paton himself had just written a book ("Day Dawn") in 1880, which was advertised in the Watch Tower. But Paton's articles on 1881 said not to expect much in that year, because it was only an assumed parallel to the Jewish age, not necessarily a true parallel. Paton's articles in the Watch Tower downplayed expectations for 1881. The following is Paton's article in the Watch Tower, May 1880, p.R103
. . . then there is certainly no ground for expecting anything in 1881 more than in any other year. The advocates of the 1881 point have never claimed any more in favor of that date than a parallel to the last half of the 70th week of Dan. 9. They know as well as we that there is no prophetic period that ends in 1881.
Paton only allowed for a difference in expectation for the natural Jewish people and the Jewish nation. But Russell himself was much stronger on 1881. In the article from the Watch Tower, February 1, 1881, Russell explains:
Articles about these expectations for 1881 were repeated many times over the next few months of Watch Tower issues. Even the Great Pyramid was seen to show the year 1881, as shown in the May 1881 Watch Tower:

In April 1881, Russell also put out the famous call for 1,000 "little flock" preachers who would give away tracts for free and support themselves by selling Paton's "Day Dawn" and taking subscriptions to the Watch Tower, with the offer that they could now keep all the money from this method if they needed it to support themselves. This wasn't to be a long-term assignment because it was related to the imminence of October 2, 1881. This was similar to Russell's promotion of Barbour's book in 1877 to prepare the world for the spring of 1878.





To me, this suggestion in April 1881 (and basically repeated in August and September 1881) is uncannily similar to the 1973 and 1974 praise for those who would sell their homes and property to live out the rest of their days as a pioneer in this old system.
*** km 5/74 p. 3 How Are You Using Your Life? ***
Reports are heard of brothers selling their homes and property and planning to finish out the rest of their days in this old system in the pioneer service. Certainly this is a fine way to spend the short time remaining before the wicked world’s end.
In the midst of all this hype, calling it the "close of the Gospel day," and naming the actual day after which the change could take place, it was necessary for Russell to begin cooling down those expectations a bit. The same May 1881 issue also stated on p.5:

Two paragraphs later, the reason for this change is explained:

The point, of course, is that now it cannot happen until AFTER October 2, 1881. A few paragraphs later it stated:

That was May 1881 when Russell claimed "We . . . have repeatedly said that it could not take place before the fall of 1881." Actually, there appear to be no statements prior to this May issue that "repeatedly said" that. In fact, the March 1881 issue, just two months earlier, had just said nearly the opposite, that there was nothing stopping the change from taking place "immediately." Note the second paragraph in the quote below:

I mention this, because this is only one of several times when Russell claimed he hadn't said something which he clearly had. Whenever Russell says, in effect, "We never said that," these quotes are often used today in order to defend him from dogmatism. But sometimes they are just plainly not true.
A failure for anything significant to occur in 1881 would be hardest on older Second Adventists, people like Barbour who had personally experienced failures in 1843, 1844, 1873, 1874, 1875, 1878, and now 1881. Barbour dropped out of the expectation game himself after 1881. For most of the Watch Tower readers it would would be their third failure 1873/4, then 1878, now 1881. For new followers of Russell it would be more manageable, but there was no new date in the pipeline until 1914, a full 33 more years in the future. A long time to wait. (Although 1910 would also be added to the list of expectation dates.)
We would expect, then, that close to 1881 and perhaps again around 1910, that this would be a good context in which to look for any apologies concerning 1881.
So next we can look carefully at what was said in the immediate aftermath of October 2, 1881.

ZIONIST RESTORATION IN PALESTINE 1878-1914.
By December 1879, (WT quoted below) it was noted that Spring 1878 was also close to the middle of the period from October 1844 to October 1914. This idea allowed more focus on those prophecies supposedly coming true for Zionism in Palestine.
To build up Zion implies a process, and so far as relates to the earthly Jerusalem, includes the restoration of the Jewish nation of Israel according to the flesh, in all its parts; and we believe in its application to the Gospel church, the same must be true. That from 1878 to 1914 is the last half of the last trump, has often been shown, and also that this is the period during which Jerusalem is to be restored. "The last, or seventh trumpet covers the day of wrath, angry nations and the time of reward for prophets, saints and them that fear God's name, small and great." Rev. 11:18. . . . . Some are to be counted worthy to escape the tribulation [144,000/Bride], . . ., while others are left to pass through the fire, wash their robes, and come up out of the great tribulation [great crowd].
Another WT contributor from Barbour's paper was B.W.Keith and he wrote that the 144,000 were natural Jews, and the great crowd were gentiles. See WT June 1880, p.R108: [Note that he uses the term "apology" in the sense of the Greek word "apologia," meaning "defense" or "explanation"/"reason".]
The apology for presenting this subject, is, that the return of the Jews, and the time of trouble are becoming apparent facts; and it is believed that the two facts will be the means, in the next 35 years, of the conversion of the 144,000 Jews, and the great multitude of all nations, who will come up out of or after the great tribulation, with their robes washed white in the blood of the Lamb--Rev. 7. B. W. K.
Paton produced a kind of compromise solution in the same December 1879 WT (p.R58). I include the comment by Paton here because it shows he was not ready to produce a single year for the prediction about the date of their "change" or "translation." Apparently he saw the entire period now from 1878 to 1914 as a time for building up both natural Jews and the nation of spiritual Jews.
The making up suggests a gradual and not an instantaneous work; as also, "when the Lord shall build up Zion he shall appear in his glory." Ps. 102:16. This doubtless refers primarily to the restoration of the earthly Jerusalem during thirty-seven years, or from 1878 to 1914, which, according to the prophetic arguments, is the last half of the sounding of the seventh. But there are two Jerusalems --an earthly and a heavenly; a mount that could be touched, and a mount Zion that could not be touched. (Heb. 12:18,22.) We believe these are related to each other; the one outward and Jewish, the other inward and Christian; and that both are to be built up during the same period, "the last trump." According to the parables of the "two Dispensations," Christ was due to enter or come into the office of king in the spring of 1878, the parallel of his riding into Jerusalem in fulfillment of "behold thy king cometh;" and the same king who has the power to restore the natural Jerusalem, has the power to build up the spiritual Jerusalem; and it is declared that he will reward the whole church--prophets, saints and them that fear his name, small and great"--during the seventh trumpet, (Rev. 11:18)--the same period in which it has often been shown that the earthly Jerusalem will be restored.
This will help explain why Paton was initially against setting expectations for the date 1881. Next post.

Personally I think that BroRando removed his own topic, probably because it was not very supportive of his predictions for 2034. And there were so many off-topic comments (a lot from me) that were not supportive of 1914. (His 2034 speculation depends on the accuracy of 1914.)

J. H. PATON APOLOGY FOR 1878
After that July 1879 Watch Tower issue supplement where Russell explained his involvement in the 1878 promotion, 1878 was mentioned again in the October 1879 issue. Here is where Paton explains the 1878 failure and proposes a meaning that "salvages" the failure, and would become the new 1878 doctrine until well after Russell died. But there is a kind of apology buried in there, too.
First of all for those who don't know the context of Paton's presentation, the "doubles" theory said that because the time from the death of Jacob to the death of Jesus Christ was 1,845 years, then the time from Jesus' baptism (his appearance as the Christ) until his invisible presence was also 1,845 years. Therefore 29 C.E. + 1,849 = 1874. And therefore the time from Jesus death/resurrection (his "change") in the spring of 33 C.E. until the spring of 1878 must also be 1,845 years.
Later of course, this same parallel would be used to show that the "favor" to the Jewish nation lasted until "Cornelius" in 36 C.E. and therefore those 7 years of "Jewish harvest" would correspond to the 7 years of "Gospel harvest" from 1874 to 1881. And even after the Bride class was translated to their spiritual bodies a time of trouble would continue for the nations for the remaining 33 years of harvest from 1881 to 1914. This corresponded to the time between 36 until Jerusalem was finally destroyed in 70 C.E.
1 BC + 1,845 = 1844 + 30 = 29 + 1,845 = 1874 + 3.5 = 33 + 1,845 = 1878 + 3.5 = 36 + 1,845 = 1881 + 33 = 70 + 1,845 = 1914 + 3.5 = 73 + 1,845 = 1918* *As 1914 approached, it was remembered that some Jews had survived Jerusalem's 70 C.E. disaster until Masada in 73 C.E., which supported a new date of 1918. Russell didn't actually support 1918, but Rutherford did, and it was a big part of the predictions found in "The Finished Mystery" (7th Volume) published in 1917. Hopefully that helps to make sense of what Paton wrote in 1879. But remember that up to this point (1879) only the years 1844, 1874 and 1878 and 1914 were officially considered to be part of the application. 1881  hadn't been spelled out yet. Barbour never mentioned it in "The Three Worlds" although he did propose it as the new "end of the harvest" in August 1878. The first time the Watch Tower will mention 1881 will not be until May 1880. But even then the WT was not supporting the date. It was an article by J.H.Paton to say that this new date that Barbour was predicting was wrong. Later, the WT will accept 1881, but not in the exact same terms it was being predicted by Barbour. 
So back to the point, here is Paton explaining 1878 in the October 1879 Watch Tower, starting with p.R37:
THE TEN VIRGINS
Many of our readers are more or less familiar with the application of the parable of the ten virgins (Matth. 25), to a movement in this last generation in reference to the Lord's coming. . . . This is specially important now, because some of what has been considered the well-established features of the parable, are being discarded by some of our brethren, and a new departure is by them being made.
Translation: 1878 failed and some people are departing and rejecting features of the application of this parable.
It is confidently predicted that we will discard the whole application, but we see no reason for so doing. . . . This will be apparent presently to all who understand the former application, and the new position taken, and who are free enough from bondage to accept the truth as from the Lord, irrespective of the vessel in which it is conveyed.
Naturally, I would always recommend reading the entire original WT article, but I will quote long portions of the passage and try to edit it down to something more readable:
To appreciate the strength of the former application, we must see the place or time in the gospel dispensation, where the parable belongs, and to appreciate the weakness of the new departure it is necessary to see the parallelism of the Jewish and Gospel dispensations. The chart on which that beautiful bible argument is illustrated hangs before me as I write. We regard it as a clear, simple and strong definite time argument. From the death of Jacob to the death of Christ, --1845 years,--is the measure of the first or twelve tribe dispensation. From the death of Christ in the Spring of A.D. 33, until the Spring of A.D. 1878, is the measure of the second-- another period of 1845 years. The two dispensations are equal in length, the second beginning where the first ends, at the cross, or death of Christ. ...The two cherubim made "of one measure and one size" (1 Kings 6:25) placed with wings extended on either side of the mercy seat, illustrate the equality of the two dispensations. Types are exact, for being a feature of the law, they must be fulfilled even to the jots and tittles,... From the death of Jacob to the birth of Christ is equal to the period from the death of Christ to the Autumn of A.D. 1844,.... Each of these points was marked by an important event in reference to the coming of the Lord. The tarrying of Jesus for 30 years before his baptism and entrance on the harvest work, has its parallel in the tarrying time between 1844 and 1874, at which later point the harvest of the gospel dispensation began. Christ's personal ministry of 3-1/2 years, ending at his death, has its parallel in the 3-1/2 years of harvest from the Autumn of 1874 until the Spring of 1878. At his birth Christ came in the body prepared for sacrifice, tarried thirty years, and came as Bridegroom and Reaper, and three years and a half later he rode into Jerusalem as a King....The Anglo-Turkish treaty of 1878, made about the time of the Berlin Congress, securing certain legal favors to the Jews, opening the door for their restoration, is certainly in harmony with the application, and we are not ashamed of our rejoicing at its confirmation. We regard this whole affair as a remarkable confirmation of the truth of bible prophecies, and of the gospel of Christ. No one who is at all familiar with this argument, can fail to see that whatever tends to weaken or set aside the parallelism, weakens the whole position. As the former closed with its three stages of the coming of Jesus, so this one closes with three stages. In 1844 he was due to leave the most holy place. ... He was expected to come to earth, and to do a great many things that were not due, by those who had not learned that the law, which was a shadow, required that the High Priest should tarry in the holy place to cleanse it (the sanctuary means the holy place,) after he had done his work in the most holy and left it. (See Lev. 16.) That the tarrying was thirty years or from 1844 until 1874 has often been shown. ...Man did not make the parallels, but with the Lord's help found them. Thus then they stand related to each other;--at the end of the Jewish dispensation Christ came first as a babe, second as Bridegroom and Reaper, and third as a King; at this time, and points of time exactly corresponding, Christ first came from the Most Holy, and tarried in the Holy place, second as Bridegroom and Reaper, and third, as King.
Granted that this is not a pure apology but it acknowledges that the prediction was wrong, and that people were leaving over it. And the WT position was that these persons were, in effect, throwing out the baby with the bathwater. And the dates in the application were said to be from God, not man, and that anyone rejecting the truth of these dates (1844, 1874 and 1878) was still in bondage and not free enough to accept the truth from the Lord.
He goes on:
All who understand the arguments, admit that the tarrying of the parable began in 1844, and ended in 1874, and it has always been urged in favor of the cry which pointed to 1874, for the coming of the Bridegroom, being the "midnight cry," because it began at midnight,--1859--which is a very consistent reason. . . . Now brethren, all who can hear me, I want it clearly understood that I have not given up the application of the parable, and can see no sufficient reason for so doing. I believe the going forth ended in 1844, that the tarrying ended in 1874, and therefore the cry pointing to 1874 was the midnight cry, and I believe it was consistent that the name "midnight cry" then disappeared from the publication, because, as stated at the time, it had done its work; but in harmony with that faith I also believe that Christ came in the character of a Bridegroom in 1874. . . .
It is admitted by some that going into the marriage is not translation, but there is a special reason in their minds for placing that going in yet in the future, and the coming of the Bridegroom, also in the future, even though they teach as do we that the tarrying time ended in 1874. That special reason is the basis of the new departure we have mentioned. Since the Autumn of 1878, there has been a very clearly marked difference of opinion on the subjects of Atonement, Resurrection and Restitution. While we have not felt disposed to disfellowship anyone on account of a difference of opinion on these things, or for any other opinion as long as we are satisfied of the christian integrity of brethren, there has been difference enough to prevent the same hearty co-operation.   .  .
But the effort is now put forth to create a division before the Bridegroom comes (which is supposed by them to be future) such as will justify the claim that we are the "Foolish Virgins" of the parable.
The fact that this subject of the wedding garment is now agitated, and especially since the Spring of 1878, is to us significant. We regard it as one of the circumstantial evidences that it is due here, and that the midnight cry movement is past as is the cry itself.
Paton makes much of that doctrinal division in the year 1878, the same year that Russell and Barbour had begun to break ties. Paton, of course, had left Barbour and gone along with Russell, as did several former contributors to the Herald who now contributed to the Watch Tower. Paton wants to make this about something other than the chronology, because he tacitly admits that the chronology expectation on its own would have made Russell, Barbour, Keith and Paton look like the foolish virgins of the parable.
Up to this point, there is no real apology, but at least in the next article on the "wedding garment" we see more acknowledgement of the problem created by the failure:
This is an important question, and one which is receiving much attention at present from all who have been interested in the "Harvest" message, and who believe that in the Spring of 1878, a point was reached in the history of the gospel church, parallel to that of the Jewish church at the death of Christ. Though the faith of some has been severely tried, and some have perhaps been led to doubt the correctness of the position referred to above, we believe no good reason can be shown why the space of time covered by the "Two Dispensations," --Jewish and Gospel, as represented by the Cherubim, did not end in the Spring of 1878. However much we differ from some of our brethren in regard to the present position or the light that was due; at the end of the Jewish double, we still believe that future events will vindicate that the movement based on such an application of the prophetic periods and parallels was and is of the Lord. Our faith in the movement is deeper than our faith in men.
So Paton actually admits that the expectation was a part of "our mistakes" and might even be including himself as one of those "too many" who treated others as not "in the light" for NOT expecting it (as he obviously did). He is perhaps also saying that he (and therefore Russell and Barbour at that time) were being too "dogmatic," just because they felt so "sure."
That translation was not due in the Spring of 1878 is certain, and yet too many were inclined to treat others as not "in the light" for not expecting it then. Being positive or dogmatic does not make anything true, even if it does make an impression. Shall we not learn wisdom by our mistakes? We felt sure once that the gathering of the wheat into the barn by the angels, was translation, but now we are convinced that Omnipotence alone, in His hands who is higher than the angels, can give immortality, and therefore the angels can only gather into a condition of readiness for the great change.
That point about the angels becomes a curious transition (or diversion) to potentially blaming the angels for letting in humans who didn't actually have the wedding garment. After all the angels weren't above mistakes, since they can't read hearts, he says:
Some are just as positive yet that going in to the marriage is translation, but we are inclined to consider being "in" to the marriage the same as being "in" the barn, and we believe that some--perhaps a very small number--represented by one without the wedding garment-- will be cast out after being in. The "going forth" to meet the bridegroom, before the slumbering was not a movement from one place to another, but an act of faith, on account of prophetic light. The slumbering was a lack of the exercise of faith; and the "going out" to meet him under the midnight cry was also a movement of faith. If the going out to meet him was of faith, it seems consistent at least that the going in with him should also be of faith. We are quite sure that there is no reference whatever to translation in the parable of the ten virgins. That the expectation of translation is the proper attitude of those who are gathered in may be true, but it seems that even the angels are not infinite in knowledge. Some things "the angels desire to look into." 1 Pet. 1:12. And the Lord answered them indefinitely. (Dan. 12:7.) I am not sure that the angels are in all respects above mistake. They are sinless, but there is a great difference between purity and infallibility in knowledge. God and Christ can "discern the thoughts and intents of the heart;" but can the angels? We think not. And here seems a key: The angels gather in (let me suggest) those who have the light in theory, but the Lord causes to be put out into "outer darkness" (even what they have is taken from them) those who are not right in spirit.
I don't believe the admission of making mistakes and being too dogmatic and sure is very sincere. That's because I don't see any point in admitting mistakes but then quickly changing the subject to how the angels may also make mistakes. Further, he makes a point that the expectation was an act of faith. It showed the right spirit, and they showed they had spiritual light because the "theory" was still correct. Going out to meet him during the midnight cry was too early but showed the right spirit. Not going out in expectation showed the wrong spirit.
In later Watch Towers, the difference between the foolish virgins and the wise virgins would become the difference between those who believed in 1874, 1878 and then 1881, (wise) and those who didn't (foolish).

THE 1878 "APOLOGY"
We'll take Russell's stated view of 1878 first. Russell explains it in a supplement to the very first issue of the Watch Tower, July 1879. This was especially addressed to the former readers of Barbour's paper.
In this supplement Russell's goal is to explain the breakup with Barbour "rather suddenly" as he calls it. He says he was awakened to Second Advent preaching in 1869, through Jonas Wendell, but didn't convert to his teaching about the "burning of the world" in 1873. And he wasn't convinced of that 1873 the prediction either (and he knew that Barbour, another Second Adventist, had been preaching that same 1873 date).
But then came 1876. (A year we see Russell beginning to write time predictions for George Storrs' journal, The Bible Examiner.) Russell says that up until this year he ignored the time predictions, having thought them unworthy. But he was already convinced that Jesus' advent would be in two stages: (1) the church/Bride/saints would be "withdrawn/changed/translated" (raptured) well "before (2) there would be an open manifestation to the world."
In 1876, after examining the "time proofs" with Barbour and Paton, Russell says he became convinced of the truth of these proofs. The 1874 date for Christ's coming still held, in other words, but it must have been invisible as Barbour, Paton, B W Keith were saying. Since 1874 was now a "proven fact" in Russell's mind, he was convinced that the next step, their change from physical to spiritual bodies, must be 1878. And there was less than two years to get the word out.
Br. B[arbour] and I talked over various methods of promulgating these truths and finally decided to travel and preach them wherever men and women would hear, and to thus spend (D.V.) the remainder of the harvest, which we then supposed was three and a half years, and would close in 1878. While I was arranging my affairs, brother B. returned to Rochester to prepare for publication of the "Three Worlds." (We found during the Philadelphia meetings that such a book was necessary to furnish hearers with chapter and verse for what was claimed). . . We, Bros. Barbour, Paton and myself, traveled, lectured, etc., for some months, when it seemed advisable to us all that a paper should go continuously to those who were hearing, thus keeping alive and watering seed sown. This seemed good to us all, and while brother Paton and I continued lecturing, brother B. went to Rochester and fitted up our office, type, etc., for which I furnished the money.
Russell then begins to make an issue of the many problems he had with Barbour. He mentions that as of July 1878, the publication of "The Three Worlds" in magazine/tract format had paper dropped Russell's name and now only mentioned Barbour. He mentions that he doesn't know where the money went from selling the old printing setup. He mentions that he sent Barbour money several times without keeping track either on paper or mentally, and that he also "presumably" replaced $100 that Barbour once lost from his vest pocket. All told, Russell thinks it was $300 or $400 he sent. He also complains that Barbour considered a $660 joint bank account, which Russell made for convenience of all three of them, to have been a gift to Barbour's paper (The Herald). There are so many numerous complaints about Barbour's style, his patronizing attitude, his mishandling of money, misfiling of subscriber names. Russell complains that Barbour ran down the bank account when the Herald had also profited from about  $260 worth of the sales "The Three Worlds," hymn books, etc. Russell says that it's true that Barbour did almost all the work for Herald, but that he was also making his own living from the Herald, albeit living frugally. Barbour had publicly called "young" Russell "immodest" in trying to give his own name a higher place in the Herald. Russell prints a response letter from himself to Barbour where he offers to buy Barbour out and take over the Herald, or to sell his own interest in the paper and to start his own paper. This letter, dated May 22, 1879 in the supplement just a few weeks before Russell starts Zion's Watch Tower on July 1, 1879, which he began with the mailing list of the Herald (along with having arranged to take over the subscription list of Rice's paper, due to Rice's failing health.
Responding to Barbour's accusation that young Russell was immodest and had learned all the wonderful doctrines and chronology from Barbour himself, Russell very ably defends the fact that these truths (except maybe the specific interpretation of the chronology) go back to Joseph Seiss, George Storrs, Henry Dunn, and others. And some of this was written in the 1850's:
At the time the above was written Bro. Barbour was entirely uninterested in these matters, a gold miner in Australia, and even since his return to the United States, and his interest in the second coming of Christ, his preaching and teaching has, until quite recently, opposed rather than favored these doctrines.
So, I think a lot of this will seem petty today, but that's the point. Amidst all the bickering one can lose sight of the fact that there was also a serious doctrinal difference about the exact nature of the "Substitution" doctrine.
It's the only time when Russell goes into so much detail about when and how he promoted 1878, and yet it says nothing about the biggest problem with the 1878 doctrine: That It failed to happen as Russell predicted.

if you can pry the bottle from the fingers of @The Librarian.