ComfortMyPeople

Yes. If you claim I presented falsehoods you do have to show them, not just claim they are plain to see.
And especially not to just provide numerous examples that merely support exactly what I already said. It's as if you think you are playing to audience of stupid people who will be fooled into thinking that just because you offered some documentary evidence, and pretended that it doesn't support exactly what I said, that they will believe there is some kind of disagreement between what I said above and the evidence you showed. Instead you should try to show where this evidence differs from what I already said. Otherwise you will still appear to be highly dishonest.

No. I've told the truth. Just because you oppose the truth, this does not make me a liar. Not once have you ever provided even a shred of evidence. Yet, I've probably made several mistakes over these last few years here. I would welcome any correction of any kind, and you've had 2.5 years under the name BillyTheKid46 to provide something.  It's rare that you have even made an attempt. Usually it's just bluster of the sort that claims you disagree and therefore anyone who disagrees with you must be a liar.
LOL. I don't claim to come from Bethel. I come from California, Missouri, and New York, mostly. I happened to work at Bethel in Brooklyn, NY from 1976 to 1982. It's even on my old work resume. Telling the truth doesn't make me a liar and a hypocrite.
Then you should think about it. It might be a refreshing change of pace. I think there would be a lot less haughtiness, dishonesty, pretentiousness and contentiousness.
My comments can be used anywhere anyone wants to use them, with or without attribution. Several people have asked, and I've always said Yes. You can try to make a book out of these comments and sell it, for all I care. I've been requoted on a couple of apostate sites, and Witness pages, too. Jesus said to give to anyone who asks of you, and not turn away anyone who would borrow from you.
And by the way, you claim that this site is an apostate site, and yet you directly contribute to it.
Actually I would love for you to start showing people where I have manipulated or distorted Watchtower publications. I don't believe I have, but I'd be happy to discuss any places where you believe this has been the case, and I will gladly admit the mistakes and make the corrections wherever I was wrong. I should add, of course, that your own use of the literature appears to be blatantly manipulated and distorted. Even under this very topic you have made statements that appear to contradict the Watchtower's teachings, while evidently pretending that you agree with them or understand them.

All of this issue goes away when we understand the way the terms were used in Russell's writings. We merely need to look at when Russell referenced the "great tribulation," rather than "Armageddon."
Armageddon was to be a battle between "capitalists and workers." A kind of worldwide socialist revolution between the forces with money (including religion) and those who felt the economic antagonism, those who would fight and "strike" to be treated fairly, or get what they want --especially "labor." Here is a picture of Armageddon from the 1914 Photo Drama of Creation. These would be the first "battles" of Armageddon, until "crushed" by God's Kingdom within a matter of months after 1914.

The most general view throughout most of the early Watchtower publications had been that the "great tribulation" would be in 1914. Then it became the few years leading up to 1914 and ending in 1914. Then, when they considered that the harvest (ending in 1914) should not be interrupted until the end of the harvest, they began teaching (in 1904) that the rest of the Bride/144,000 would expect to receive their heavenly reward in 1914, while the rest of the world fell into chaos and anarchy in the few months following October 1914, with no human institutions ruling anywhere in the world (except in Israel). As 1914 approached, there was more focus on 1915, and the months that followed -- or even a consideration (mostly dismissed) that 607 BCE (called 606 at the time) had been wrong and that it could be the more historically accurate date of 587/6 (called 588 below):
Note the following from IBSA Expanded Biblical Comments [on Daniel] -- quoting Russell's writings:
The impact is prominently noted throughout the Scriptures as a "time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation." (Dan. 12:1) OV83:T The little period of 40 years between 1874 and 1914 is, in the Scriptures, called the "Day of Vengeance," the smiting time preparatory to the inauguration of the Kingdom of righteousness. R1874:5 We expect this smiting in 1915, not 1914. Q96:4 If Zedekiah's dethronement should be dated BC 588, it would make the date 1932. My conviction, however, favors 1914. SM480:T This smiting, we believe, is near at hand (1915 comment) . . .
Of course, the "Battle of Armageddon" is always associated with the "Great Tribulation," but the exact meaning behind this vocabulary has changed over the years. The following is from Russell's book "Thy Kingdom Come" (Studies in the Scriptures, Vol 3):
The Scriptural time-proofs which we have considered show that this trouble was due to date from the time of Christ's second advent (October, 1874), when the judging of the nations would commence, under the enlightening influences of the Day of the Lord. This is shown in the Great Pyramid thus:
The "Descending Passage," from the entrance of the Great Pyramid, leading to the "Pit" or "Subterranean Chamber," represents the course of the world in general (under the prince of this world), into the great time of trouble (the "Pit"), in which evil shall be brought to an end.. . . Then measuring down the "Entrance Passage" from that point, to find the distance to the entrance of the "Pit," representing the great trouble and destruction with which this age is to close, when evil will be overthrown from power, we find it to be 3457 inches, symbolizing 3457 years from the above date, B.C. 1542. This calculation shows A.D. 1915 as marking the beginning of the period of trouble; for 1542 years B.C. plus 1915 years A.D. equals 3457 years. Thus the Pyramid witnesses that the close of 1914 will be the beginning of the time of trouble such as was not since there was a nation—no, nor ever shall be afterward. And thus it will be noted that this "Witness" fully corroborates the Bible testimony on this subject, as shown by the "Parallel Dispensations" in Scripture Studies, Vol. II, Chap. VII.
Nor should any doubt the fact that the forty years of "harvest" began in the fall of 1874 because the trouble has not yet reached so portentous and unendurable a stage; and because, in some respects, the "harvest" period since that date has been one of great advancement in knowledge. . . .
Besides, we should remember that the Word of the Lord clearly shows that the judgments of this time of trouble will begin with the nominal Church, preparatory to its overthrow, and in the strife of selfishness between capital and labor, both of which are now organizing for the culminating trouble.
To be even more pedantic, the "great tribulation" and the "time of trouble such as was not since there was a nation" were not always exactly the same thing either, since the "great tribulation" was seen a bit differently, depending on how it was to come upon each different class (Bride class, great company, the world). However, it's a simple matter to find at least a dozen specific references by Russell to the "great tribulation" starting in 1914. The Watchtower even held onto a version of this same view until fairly recently (last clarified in 2013), teaching that the "Great Tribulation" started in 1914 and had been cut short on account of the chosen ones back around 1918 to be started up again just prior to Armageddon.
*** w13 7/15 pp. 3-4 par. 3 “Tell Us, When Will These Things Be?” ***
For a number of years, we thought that the great tribulation began in 1914 with World War I and that “those days were cut short” by Jehovah in 1918 when the war ended so that the remnant would have the opportunity to preach the good news to all nations. (Matt. 24:21, 22) After the completion of that preaching work, Satan’s empire would be destroyed. Thus, the great tribulation was thought to have three phases: There would be a beginning (1914-1918), the tribulation would be interrupted (from 1918 onward), and it would conclude at Armageddon.
 

@BillyTheKid46, I guess that after you have called me and others a lot of terrible names, and after making a lot of false claims about me and others, that I should probably respond in the spirit of 1 Peter 3:15, especially since I made this thread at least partly about "honesty."
Since you have provided no evidence, except for some evidence that helps my case, and hurts your own, I really don't need to do anything more than just let you know that your opinions are mostly wrong and misleading. I know absolutely that nearly all your claims about me are wrong. And I think some of those claims are also dishonest, but I don't know enough about you to judge that for sure.
Also, for those many times when you appear to be the most disingenuous, you simultaneously give evidence that you cannot help but project onto others any of the negative things that your mind tells you might be true of yourself. For this reason, I do not consider you dishonest in many cases, since this is just a reflex in some people. For reference, I'll give a definition of this kind of projection from Google:
Psychological projection is a defense mechanism people subconsciously employ in order to cope with difficult feelings or emotions. Psychological projection involves projecting undesirable feelings or emotions onto someone else, rather than admitting to or dealing with the unwanted feelings.
You may not know this about yourself, but you sometimes make the projection obvious by even repeating portions of the exact vocabulary that disturbed you. A couple of times you have even devolved to the simplest kind of projection, reminiscent of the PeeWee-Hermanesque retort: "I know you are but what am I?"
For this reason I'm not at all insulted by your insults, but I feel sad for how well it explains your reflexive thinking. It makes me think that, at least subconsciously, every false thing you have said about me is something you are concerned might be true about yourself. To me, therefore, you are only insulting yourself.

This might often true, but it might not be our part to judge the majority so harshly. I have been on many a call to those who have left and in my experience the most common issues that get brought up are things that I would file under "Euodia-Syntyche Syndrome." I don't know if there is a specific reason common to the majority. However, the complaints I have heard most often are that they are just burned out trying to maneuver through a perceived lack of love, coldness, pettiness, jealousy, suspicions, contentions, competition for good brothers to marry, being judged as materialistic or haughty if they have a good job, house, car, education, etc. (Most of these are also issues for brothers, even if this looks to some like a "sisters-only" list.)
When encouraged to come back and the assurance that Jehovah has not forgotten the love they have shown for his name, etc., they often say that surely Jehovah will understand that it's just not worth the toll on their health: depression, anxiety, stress, loss of sleep, etc. When reminded of the importance of sacred service and good association and other "useful habits" and then warned of the temptations of the world and the higher likelihood that bad associations can pull them into worldly thinking, they sometimes reply sadly or even tearfully that this was never a problem, and that the desire to associate with others of good morals was what attracted them to the Witnesses in the first place. I have encouraged them to speak again with Witnesses who they knew well as friends, Witness relatives, to attend the next assembly, and even consider another congregation to associate with.
I find that it is most often plain old discouragement, and one of the more successful methods for getting persons to try and come back has been to ask them to think of someone in the congregation they know who is in worse straits and needs encouragement, with the appeal that often the best way of finding encouragement ourselves is to provide it for someone who needs it worse than we do. There is more happiness in giving than receiving.

We took supper at a Red Robin after the first day of the “Love Never Fails” Regional Convention in Wilkes-Barre. At the table just behind me, a child—about 5 years of age (and not one of ours)—began raising a horrible ruckus, screaming at the top of his lungs. His mother took him out, but when she returned he started up anew. I turned around and asked the parents if everything was okay. 
I admit that I was looking for signs of endangerment. Maybe one “parent” or the other would look shifty. Maybe the child would act as though they were not his parents. It is a sign of the times that I should do this, but I saw nothing alarming.
There was a time not too long ago when most parents would respond in a certain way to such a tantrum, but that way is likely to land them in jail today. Jehovah’s Witnesses work with many refugee groups. Almost always, they encounter ones whose flight has turned their lives upside-down, and one of the most bewildering things they confront is that child-rearing customs that were absolutely routine and unremarkable back home are taboo in their new home. Do not misunderstand. I make no argument for its return. That said, it is by no means clear that today’s children are better adjusted for its disappearance. 
My turning around put the parents even more on notice that they were disrupting the entire restaurant. They could hardly have not known it before, but here was a fresh reminder. The father became heated, threatening no TV for a week and the like. Upon leaving, I said to him: “Don’t worry about it. Whatever you do, stay calm. I’ve been there. They’re kids. It happens.”
Taking in the convention program over three days, I began to wish that silly reporter from the Phoenix New Times would have accepted the offer from the attendants (whom she seemed to regard as wardens) to be seated. With her anti-JW story already written, she could hardly run it during the day of their convention without at least having briefly been there, and it is plain she comes with that rationale.  She looks around hastily, notices that people are paying attention, and writes that “attendees listened rapturously.”
Of course, she is not silly. What she latches onto for her story is certainly not nothing. She will forgive my grumbling on the basis that she is young enough to be my daughter. For all I know, she IS the daughter of some friend of mine. Reporters are not silly, or if they are, they are no more so than anyone else. They are typically concerned with injustice. They sometimes put their safety on the line in uncovering it. Nobody is silly who does this. They have faith that shining the bright light of journalism on something will cause the cockroaches to vanish. Usually, however, they just go somewhere else—and that circumstance is what triggers my charge of “sillyness” in the first place.
Though her focus is certainly not nothing, neither is it everything. She entirely misses the big picture. She would have benefitted from the program that she cited as “three days of music-video presentations, prayers, songs, addresses, symposiums, and dramatic readings from the Bible” on the theme of “Love Never Fails.” The public address of that convention (the program is identical at all locations—only the speaker differs, and not even that for every talk, since portions of that Phoenix “international” convention, so-named for the foreign delegates attending, were streamed into other locations, such as Wilkes-Barre) opened with a truth as self-evident as are the truths Thomas Jefferson addressed in the Declaration of Independence.
In this case, it is that all instances of injustice occur and are cultivated due to a lack of love. That being so, and obvious, the question becomes: “Just who will teach love?” Will it be the university? That is not its job. It focuses on training the intellect, with the apparent assumption that the moral qualities such as love will take care of themselves. As even the sloppiest purview of world headlines reveals, they do not. So who will teach it? Will it be agencies that are guided in training from the university that does not teach it? Is the quality so innate that it not need be taught? Again, a review of news headlines reveals the fallacy of such a notion. So who?
Training that takes its cue from humankind’s Creator has traditionally played that role. “God is love,” states 1 John 4:8. Such training appears under attack from the Phoenix reporter, though she has nothing to replace it with. In the case of Bible training, Witnesses will say that it is a “treasure,” but it is a “treasure” carried in “earthen vessels”—that is, us, as flawed humans—just as Paul states at 2 Corinthians 4:7. Humans are capable of error, poor judgment, and even villainy. But that doesn’t mean that the training from God is no good, and the reporter should have sat through it.
When she cites the Pew report that reveals Jehovah’s Witnesses have the lowest rate of retention of all faiths, why did she not also cite what appears on the same page? “Jehovah’s Witnesses are among the most racially and ethnically diverse religious groups in America,” it says. Nobody is concerned about racial prejudice more than reporters, and here Pew makes a statement to indicate that the Witnesses have solved it to a remarkable degree. In fact, all she had to do was look around and see for herself the harmonious diversity that she will not soon see again. But she does not notice it. She is caught up in an agenda pushed by the faith’s opponents. She is interested in the child sexual abuse angle—an angle that is seemingly shared by every group of persons on the planet. Pedophiles are a pernicious lot that nobody has succeeded in vanquishing, and the Boy Scouts of America, who taught generations of boys responsibility, self included, are at risk of going under because of it.
In New York State, where I have lived and still keep up, a new law eliminates the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse. Law firms have flooded the media in search of plaintiffs. Hundreds of new lawsuits are being filed, and the challenge may soon be to find somebody NOT being sued, as lawyers preside over a massive transfer of wealth that amounts to a tax on everyone else. Businesses raise prices. Governments raise taxes. Insurance rates of all sort skyrocket at a time when overall inflation is quite low.
In fact, had I detected abuse at the Red Robin restaurant, and had I reported it, and had the police and child protective authorities arrived and confirmed that it was indeed abuse, and had they removed the child on that account, I still would not have been sure that I had done the right thing. Among those squarely in the crosshairs of child sexual abuse lawsuits are many agencies dedicated to placing them in “protected” settings, but who have put them into settings no better and sometimes worse than where they were before. The world is a shell game of persons wanting to “do something” who, though well-intentioned, are likely to simply shift the evil from one place to another.
In contrast, Jehovah’s Witnesses, during their 2017 Regional Conventions, considered detailed scenarios in which child sexual abuse has been known to occur—if there are sleepovers, if there are unsupervised trips to the restroom, if there are tickling sessions, if someone is showing unusual interest in your child, for example—so that parents, who are obviously the first line of defense, can be vigilant. Nobody, but nobody, gathers their entire worldwide membership for such training with the aim of protecting children from harm.
It is certainly not wrong for the reporter to report on the Witness connection with child sexual abuse. Much as they would love to say that they have vanquished the crime, such is plainly not the case. But neither has it been the case for anyone else. In some ways, Jehovah’s Witnesses have created a unique legal vulnerability for themselves, for unlike most faiths that were content to preach to the flock weekly and thereafter take no interest in whether religious training was actually applied or not, Witnesses attempt to “police their own,” and thus did become aware of sordid things.
Yet she was right there at the three day convention focusing on all aspects and applications of love. (And an international convention of 40,000 must make a greater impression than a Wilkes-Barre convention of 3500) Had she paid attention, she would have heard from the Cherokee man who grew up embittered because the white man had stolen the lands of his people. He was embittered again when he was required to fight their war for them (Vietnam). When his wife began studying with two Witness women, he was sullen and unwelcoming. When she reached the point of wanting to be baptized, he declared that he would not come. When asked who would watch his baby during the baptism, he declared that maybe he would come after all. There, he observed the atmosphere for four days (conventions used to be longer) and his already softened attitude toward the Witnesses softened further. The reporter could have taken in that atmosphere, too, had she not had a deadline to meet.
(Jehovah’s Witnesses is not a “come down and be saved” faith. The process of learning and trying Bible teachings on for size seldom (in this area) lasts less than a year. Throughout that time, persons are grounded in their own familiar routine and environment. College is more “manipulative” than is anything having to do with the Witnesses, for there young people are typically cut off almost 24/7 from all that once stabilized them, be it family, friends, and general environment—a classic tool of those who brainwash)

Don't remember if this Watchtower discussion was added to the topic, but this is one of the major ones that explains the point about what should be expected to happen within months, not years, from 1975:
You don't need the Watchtower Library because it's on jw.org:
Remember that it's not specifically about Armageddon, but about the end of 6,000 years. But we need to pay more than the usual attention to how even THAT date, the date ending the 6,000 years since since Adam/Eve is supposed to drive lively discussions among "serious students of the Bible." It is "such an important date." No matter what it stands for, it should answer the question as to "why are we looking forward to 1975."
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1968602
Why are you looking forward to 1975?
WHAT about all this talk concerning the year 1975? Lively discussions, some based on speculation, have burst into flame during recent months among serious students of the Bible. . . . The nearness of such an important date indeed fires the imagination and presents unlimited possibilities for discussion. . . .
How do we know their calculations are correct? . . .  Does the one Book that can be implicitly trusted for its truthful historical accuracy, namely, the Inspired Word of Jehovah, the Holy Bible, give support and credence to such a conclusion?
. . . Already with the help supplied by the Bible we have accurately measured back from the spring of this year 1968 C.E. to the spring of 1513 B.C.E., a total of 3,480 years. With the continued faithful memory and accurate historical record of Jehovah’s Holy Word we can penetrate even deeper into the past . . .
Since the affliction of Israel ended in 1513 B.C.E., it must have begun in 1913 [B.C.E.], 400 years earlier. . . .
It is now only a matter of adding up the years of a few generations to date the Flood correctly. The figures are given in Genesis, chapters 11 and 12 . . . Adding this figure 1,656 to 2,370 gives 4026 B.C.E., the Gregorian calendar year in which Adam was created.
Thus, through a careful independent study by dedicated Bible scholars who have pursued the subject for a number of years, and who have not blindly followed some traditional chronological calculations of Christendom, we have arrived at a date for Adam’s creation that is 22 years more distant in the past than Ussher’s figure. This means time is running out two decades sooner than traditional chronology anticipates.
. . . of what benefit is this information to us today? Is it not all dead history, as uninteresting and profitless . . .
Are we to assume from this study that the battle of Armageddon will be all over by the autumn of 1975, and the long-looked-for thousand-year reign of Christ will begin by then? Possibly, but we wait to see how closely the seventh thousand-year period of man’s existence coincides with the sabbathlike thousand-year reign of Christ. If these two periods run parallel with each other as to the calendar year, it will not be by mere chance or accident but will be according to Jehovah’s loving and timely purposes. . . .
It does not necessarily mean that 1975 marks the end of the first 6,000 years of Jehovah’s seventh creative “day.” Why not? Because after his creation Adam lived some time during the “sixth day,” which unknown amount of time would need to be subtracted from Adam’s 930 years, to determine when the sixth seven-thousand-year period or “day” ended, and how long Adam lived into the “seventh day.” And yet the end of that sixth creative “day” could end within the same Gregorian calendar year of Adam’s creation. It may involve only a difference of weeks or months, not years.
One thing is absolutely certain, Bible chronology reinforced with fulfilled Bible prophecy shows that six thousand years of man’s existence will soon be up, yes, within this generation! (Matt. 24:34) This is, therefore, no time to be indifferent and complacent. This is not the time to be toying with the words of Jesus that “concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Matt. 24:36) To the contrary, it is a time when one should be keenly aware that the end of this system of things is rapidly coming to its violent end. Make no mistake, it is sufficient that the Father himself knows both the “day and hour”!
36 Even if one cannot see beyond 1975, is this any reason to be less active?
One might wonder how persons were then "toying with the words of Jesus" in a way that drew away from the idea that 1975 proved that the end of this system was rapidly coming to its violent end. In other words, all this talk of 1975 somehow proved that Armageddon was rapidly coming. Perhaps persons were "toying with" the words of Jesus in the way that someone might be "toying with" immoraility?

You may disagree, but I agree with @BillyTheKid46 on the point that the WTS never actually predicted that Armageddon would come in 1975. You are right that they "projected" it by very strongly implying that the appropriate time period should end within a few months, not years, from 1975. The WTS definitely led people to believe that Armageddon would come in 1975, but this was through a series of misleading and misguided statements. They never predicted outright that Armageddon would come in 1975. As BTK, Space Merchant (and I) have said, they only directly predicted that the end of 6,000 years of man's existence would end within a few months, not years, from 1975.
I recall the most careful readers of the Watchtower making that point clear to others. I even remember several specifics from  a conversation on January 2, 1975 between my father and one of his employees, who was an overly excited elder and recently returned Gilead Student, whose wife had become pregnant on their assignment. I was spending the day in my father's lab, and the brother (who worked afternoons) loudly and proudly announced his excitement about having reached his last year in this wicked system. My father had another employee there, and two graduate students (who did work-study for credit) were also there in the lab. I knew my father was a bit embarrassed for the non-JW onlookers. But he decided to deal with the issue in front of the others because this brother brought it up in front of the others.
I know that my father's opinion on this was very different from the more outspoken people in the congregation, and it was definitely different from our District Overseer and two Circuit Overseers we had in the period from 1972 to 1974. In fact, he got counseled by the District Overseer for adding Matthew 24:36 to a talk he gave at a circuit assembly just before that. My mother took the side of the District and Circuit Overseers, and therefore believed that Armageddon would have to come between 1974 and 1976. She specifically thought it was less likely to happen in 1975 only because most all JWs (in the general opinion around us) believed that this is when it would happen, and it had to happen at a time when we did not think to be it. But I also know that my father was not alone in his "negative thinking" about 1975 and I knew he could defend it well from the publications. My father believed that it could be any time, and thought it just as likely to be 1973 as it would be in 1993. Part of his reason to say this was to convince me to get a High School education, and a job, before I started pioneering. For me, this meant that I had to quit school when I was still 15, but got the GED High School equivalency instead.
Anyway, if you look very closely at all the official statements in the publications surrounding 1975, you can see that there is no prediction of Armageddon in 1975. The problem was the way these statements led people to believe that the end would most likely come either in 1975, or within a matter of months. Usually this was in the context of "What will the 1970's bring?" or "Who will conquer the world in the 1970's?" By the 1980's the prediction about Armageddon itself had become much more clear: that it would come before the end of the century, as you already pointed out.
You are right that the Watchtower publications definitely HINTED at Armageddon coming in 1975. It's easy to say, as Space Merchant said, that we never taught that the end would come in 1975, but we did teach that the end SHOULD be expected to come within a matter of months, not years, from 1975. Therefore it's wrong to say that "nothing of the sort was ever mentioned."
Space Merchant may not know any better,  but for those who do, this is what I mean by dishonesty when it comes to how our teaching on the subject is defended.

While I agree with you on this, I feel it is unimportant. It does not affect our survival at Armageddon.  Building unity and preparing for spiritual survival is what we should be focussing on right now .... and doing as much preaching as possible so we do not have blood guilt.
This reminds me of the disciples of Jesus who did not understand the most important issues while walking with Jesus..... due to their immaturity. They were arguing about who would be the greatest in the kingdom with Jesus.... being kings or princes. 
Similar power struggles like this seem to be still going on - a great lack of humility.  Please do not shove a few hundred more scriptures at us because I understand clearly that this is a "power" or  "acknowledgement " issue with you personally. You want to be acknowledged right now and not wait on Jah to do so. 
This is subversive and breaks down the unity of the "princes" by constantly searching for and feeling hurt because credits from humans are not given at this time.  A wrong spirit can develop in the most biblically educated of Jahs people.  Let these devisive leanings alone.  For me- I cooperate as far as possible - because that is an instruction from jehovah and is the unified and loving thing to do. 
I would never dream of stumbling others by severe criticism  - no matter if one uses 1000 bible verses.  The spirit of this is to sow discontent and is divisive and above all - seeking self elevation. 
Whether you accept it or not - you do not want to be found working against your brothers in christ...... unless you do not acknowledge them...... Maybe that is the problem...... you do not acknowledge them....... and feel as an individual you understand better than the collective body of christ - who work together in unity for the sake of receiving jah's spirit - despite personal preferences or understandings.  How can Jehovahs spirit work when one tries to dominate the narrative?  Is the Christian teaching of self-sacrifice not the most important in order to preserve peace! 
We are constantly reminded in the new testament to search and promote "peace". 
 

This forum currently contains a recent topic where the subject of the 1918 imprisonment and 1919 release of Rutherford and his associates has come up. There is a lot of misinformation under that topic. I'm no expert on the subject, but it's still obvious that even some who present themselves as experts can be misinformed.
There is plenty of documentation and verifiable information out there on the topic, and while there's no real shame in being misinformed, we should be careful not to present ourselves as experts. When a person presents themselves as an expert, their misinformation becomes disinformation. We should strive for honesty.
And it's not that going back to this history is necessarily all that important, but our publications have made it part of fulfilled Bible prophecy, and therefore any mishandling of information about it becomes all the more serious. Also, sometimes when such historical topics are brought up some Witnesses are quick to complain that there is no reason to go back and rehash that old material. Note however, that it is our recent books and Watchtower magazines that regularly bring up such material for review. The "God's Kingdom" book discusses it. Even one of the most recent Watchtowers brings it up again (October 2019 Watchtower):
*** w19 October p. 3 1919—One Hundred Years Ago ***
    While the eight brothers were imprisoned, faithful Bible Students circulated a petition calling for their release. These brave brothers and sisters gathered more than 700,000 signatures. On Wednesday, March 26, 1919, before the petition was submitted, Brother Rutherford and the other responsible brothers were released.
     In a speech to those who welcomed him home, Brother Rutherford said: “I am convinced that this experience we have all gone through is merely to prepare us for more strenuous times. . . . Your fight has not been to get your brethren out of prison. That was merely a side issue. . . . The fight you have been making has been for the purpose of witnessing for the Truth, and those who have done it have received a wonderful blessing.”
     The circumstances surrounding the trial of our brothers may give indication of Jehovah’s direction. On May 14, 1919, the appeals court ruled: “The defendants in this case did not have the . . . impartial trial to which they were entitled, and for that reason the judgment is reversed.” The brothers had been convicted of serious crimes, and these judgments would have remained on their records if they had only been pardoned or if their sentences had merely been commuted. No further charges were laid. As a result, Judge Rutherford retained his legal qualifications to defend Jehovah’s people before the Supreme Court of the United States, something he did many times after his release.
I won't personally get back to this topic for up to a day or so, but welcome anyone with information to present what they know about it, or have heard about it. We can start with our own publications and Wikipedia, of course. But anything that seems like valuable information or interesting questions could be presented for evaluation by all who are serious about such history.

John Butler:
This is what happens when you pervert Justice,  by even having the ABILITY to destroy whole families, when someone does not "tow the line" of Company Policy, by those who invoke the authority of Jehovah God to excuse their methods.
If we disciplined a baby .... by cutting off it's head, and exiling the parents and relatives, and cutting out their tongues .... human civilization would cease.
In the times of the Crusaders, they actually DID cut out peoples' tongues, to keep them from speaking , but just as in the case of our shunning policy and practices ... the  REAL reason is to generate  FEAR AND OBEDIENCE to the exercise of man-made authority ... to consolidate power, and not have the income stream disrupted.
This is nothing new ... it is a story as old as human existence.
What is new, is that the brutality is wrapped in silken words, loving tones,  soft voices, , and the claws are concealed by a silk and velvet glove.
... and millions and millions of hypnotic, well chosen words, continually repeated.
Every real problem we have in the Truth, is DIRECTLY because of the policies of HOW disfellowshipping is done.
Disfellowshipping is a necessary surgery to cut out cancer that will spread.
Mutilating the spectators and family  is evil.
From that fountain flows compounded injustice, fear,  bitter cold, and unnecessary heavy, heavy load of EVERY sort.
It is a cascading avalanche  that turns good men of conscience into cowardly minions of EXPERTLY and COMPETENTLY disguised evil.
There is a word for this ......
 
NORMAL.
 
 
 
 

Any data that an organization keeps with respect to a policy or prior practice is always considered fair game in a lawsuit, because these lawsuits seek to find out whether the prior practice matched the stated "public policy." The claim, if one goes after an organization for damages, is that the practice has been different from the policy.
For example, a particular city or jurisdiction claims that their policy is to always change the lead (Pb) pipes in all areas where the levels of lead reach a certain threshold, and they have kept data on all lead level complaints, and data on every area where they have changed pipes (or fought against changing the pipes).
If the city is proud of their record, and wants to prove that their stated policy was honest, they would be happy to have this record made available to the courts. And even if the courts say that they only need it to determine the probability of organizational wrongdoing in one particular case, there is a chance that this document/database will be leaked, or that the knowledge of such a document/database will cause it to be requested for multiple future cases, for as long as it is still viable to sue the water district or organization. If the water district has done a commendable job, they might even be happy that the document/database gets leaked. They might even leak it themselves.
Of course, no organization is perfect, and there will always be items in such a database that make organizations concerned, or even ashamed. The fact that over a thousand cases of abuse in the Australian Branch were NEVER reported to authorities, and that not even one was reported, produced powerful circumstantial evidence that there may have been pressure from somewhere to keep such crimes unreported. It may have shown that almost any excuse will be grasped at to keep such crimes unreported, even in areas where reporting is not only ethical, but mandatory. The Australian database was therefore very important to show a pattern, in the event that a new case would claim that such a pattern actually existed.
The other concern, of course, is that, if the database cannot be redacted, that some well-known names of brothers at the highest levels of responsibility in the organization could be revealed, bringing shame on the organization, and the families of those brothers. The Australian database had two names, I'm told, that went to the very top of the Branch in Australia (still living), and one name that went to the very top of the US Branch (a person no longer alive who was moved around after accusations surfaced). If this is true, it would give a whole new dimension to why it is suspected that the US Branch will never release the US database.

Why even admit the case of smoking and Christmas? Nobody was asking about it. It was not necessary for either of them to be mentioned. In any case, why ban Christmas and smoking at all if it meant losing members? Regardless of what period of time. Why was it wise to wait? Was losing members no longer a worry later on? Or was something else more important than losing members?
Both topics were mentioned in the chapter "Moral Refinements"

The Brothers in Mexico, specifically, the Sierra Madre Mountains had the same problem with badges we have ... people expected to see them all the time.

We don't need no stinking badges!.mp4

The Governing Body is not some infallible authority over us. Jesus and Jehovah do not give them direct revelations of what they should do or say. If that were the case, there would never be any error on their part. Jehovah and Jesus do not tell the GB that all Witnesses at conventions should wear their badges when out. Their direction comes from what is already in the Bible, and where there is no clear or direct Biblical support for or against, they can can make recommendations as they see fit in their opinion. However, they cannot (and should not) command anyone what to do. If they were to do that, they would be abusing their position, which is feeding the flock with spiritual food, which does not entail giving out commands based on opinion. The only justification for commanding anything is if it is a command in the Bible. The Bible does say "be obedient to those taking the lead". However, this is not an absolute. We know we would not obey anything that was contrary to the Bible. In saying "be obedient to those taking the lead", the assumption is that this would be something beneficial and reasonable and not against scripture.  I would say wearing name badges while out is reasonable. It advertises the convention, it encourages questions and conversation, and it's fun to see others out and about and see they belong to us. There is nothing odd about it. Perhaps also it helps the brothers and sisters remember who they are, in case they get a little forgetful....all these things are probably the most likely reasons for this recommendation,  BUT it is still an option whether one wears one or not. No one that I know of stresses about it either way. Some like to wear something more comfy than a suit and tie while at a restaurant, and some get positively worried about spilling something on their tie (my husband is one). The most obvious reason for changing into different clothes is that not everybody goes out to eat straight after the convention. Some go to their hotel to chill first. And no one chills out in their suit and tie. And to put the suit and tie back on just to go and eat out at a moderate restaurant could be a little odd. Plus it would be extra hard to get the kids back into their fancy clothes after they've spent an hour at the swimming pool..... So, no one I know of purposefully takes their name badge off, but if it so happens that they do get changed into something else, the name badge most likely doesn't go back on....

This had become a kind of cliche for experiences given from the assemblies. You would always hear someone say that they were learning about the truth, but that they had a beard and didn't like to dress in a suit and tie . . . and then . . . voila! . . . one day this person will show up at the Hall, and to everyone's surprise . . . he will be clean-shaven. The audience would even clap at this point, as if it were a bigger turning point than their baptism.
*** yb11 p. 117 Papua New Guinea ***
The next day, I arrived at the convention clean-shaven.
*** yb93 pp. 176-177 Honduras ***
The next day he was clean-shaven and had short hair! He asked for a Bible study, and a brother happily complied.
*** km 7/04 p. 1 par. 3 Imitate Jehovah’s Justice ***
To her pleasant surprise, the next day he was clean-shaven and had short hair! He asked for a Bible study, which a brother was happy to conduct, and progressed to dedication and baptism.
*** w12 4/1 p. 15 The Bible Changes Lives ***
. I quit overdrinking and taking drugs. I also cut my hair, shaved off my beard, and stopped dressing only in black.
*** w02 2/1 p. 27 Jehovah Taught Us Endurance and Perseverance ***
As they made spiritual progress, they came to their Bible study shaved, hair neatly combed, and wearing a shirt and tie in the middle of August—one of the hottest months in Greece!
I'm sure that most of us  know that the above examples are only a small sampling.

It is NOT a matter of conscience
... well, it depends on how far you want to work in the organization. Here in Spain the situation is as follows:
In many congregations one may serve as elder still wearing a beard, and therefore enjoy any other local privilege.
But that does not work for you in the neighboring congregation. It is usual for a speaker with a beard to inform when they invite him that he is wearing a beard, in case it bothers the conscience of the brothers of the congregation where he will speak.
At the circuit level, forget to have part from the platform (with beard). I know of a case that they interviewed a brother with a beard. The traveler (district) forced him to cut it if he wanted to go out in the next section. As he did not want to, they did not let him leave.
I think that in some circuit brothers with beards have served as ushers and other auxiliary works, but it has not been general. In the case of another circuit they asked the traveler about which males with beards could be ushers. Answer: "When you see one of Bethel with a beard, then. Meanwhile I do not want to be the first.
On a global level, have we seen a man with a beard in the broadcasting, or in the videos of the regional assemblies? Yes ... representing the role of non-believer, opposite husband or person in a bad spiritual state.
Result of all the previous thing: to take beard between us is a thorny subject, problematic, if you want to have to fully serve for others. If you settle for being "rank and file" maybe they do not mess with you.
If, when going to preach, people would say to me "can you wear a beard?" I will give you a short answer: yes, of course. The most extensive answer is the one I mentioned above.
A well-groomed beard in Spain is not at all a sign of rebelliousness or careless dress. The King of Spain has a beard. The previous prime minister too. When preaching, it does not attract attention.
Someone will say: "Videos and broadcasting are prepared taking into account the society or brotherhood of North America" To which I will reply that it is said again and again that the Governing Body intends an "international flavor" in our publications and videos, collecting scenes from everywhere, even the clothes. So, why is not it seen in the videos, or in the pictures in our magazines an elder directing the Watchtower study with a beard? Why are all seen with beards unbelievers? Why, when you progress, you see them shaving?
I find that it is a minor matter whether I wear a beard or not. That's why I will not leave it, to avoid more complications than the many I have in my life. But what is not a minor issue is that we are imposed the conscience of others
(2 Corinthians 1:24) “Not that we are the masters over your faith, but we are fellow workers for your joy”

It is NOT a matter of conscience
... well, it depends on how far you want to work in the organization. Here in Spain the situation is as follows:
In many congregations one may serve as elder still wearing a beard, and therefore enjoy any other local privilege.
But that does not work for you in the neighboring congregation. It is usual for a speaker with a beard to inform when they invite him that he is wearing a beard, in case it bothers the conscience of the brothers of the congregation where he will speak.
At the circuit level, forget to have part from the platform (with beard). I know of a case that they interviewed a brother with a beard. The traveler (district) forced him to cut it if he wanted to go out in the next section. As he did not want to, they did not let him leave.
I think that in some circuit brothers with beards have served as ushers and other auxiliary works, but it has not been general. In the case of another circuit they asked the traveler about which males with beards could be ushers. Answer: "When you see one of Bethel with a beard, then. Meanwhile I do not want to be the first.
On a global level, have we seen a man with a beard in the broadcasting, or in the videos of the regional assemblies? Yes ... representing the role of non-believer, opposite husband or person in a bad spiritual state.
Result of all the previous thing: to take beard between us is a thorny subject, problematic, if you want to have to fully serve for others. If you settle for being "rank and file" maybe they do not mess with you.
If, when going to preach, people would say to me "can you wear a beard?" I will give you a short answer: yes, of course. The most extensive answer is the one I mentioned above.
A well-groomed beard in Spain is not at all a sign of rebelliousness or careless dress. The King of Spain has a beard. The previous prime minister too. When preaching, it does not attract attention.
Someone will say: "Videos and broadcasting are prepared taking into account the society or brotherhood of North America" To which I will reply that it is said again and again that the Governing Body intends an "international flavor" in our publications and videos, collecting scenes from everywhere, even the clothes. So, why is not it seen in the videos, or in the pictures in our magazines an elder directing the Watchtower study with a beard? Why are all seen with beards unbelievers? Why, when you progress, you see them shaving?
I find that it is a minor matter whether I wear a beard or not. That's why I will not leave it, to avoid more complications than the many I have in my life. But what is not a minor issue is that we are imposed the conscience of others
(2 Corinthians 1:24) “Not that we are the masters over your faith, but we are fellow workers for your joy”

It is NOT a matter of conscience
... well, it depends on how far you want to work in the organization. Here in Spain the situation is as follows:
In many congregations one may serve as elder still wearing a beard, and therefore enjoy any other local privilege.
But that does not work for you in the neighboring congregation. It is usual for a speaker with a beard to inform when they invite him that he is wearing a beard, in case it bothers the conscience of the brothers of the congregation where he will speak.
At the circuit level, forget to have part from the platform (with beard). I know of a case that they interviewed a brother with a beard. The traveler (district) forced him to cut it if he wanted to go out in the next section. As he did not want to, they did not let him leave.
I think that in some circuit brothers with beards have served as ushers and other auxiliary works, but it has not been general. In the case of another circuit they asked the traveler about which males with beards could be ushers. Answer: "When you see one of Bethel with a beard, then. Meanwhile I do not want to be the first.
On a global level, have we seen a man with a beard in the broadcasting, or in the videos of the regional assemblies? Yes ... representing the role of non-believer, opposite husband or person in a bad spiritual state.
Result of all the previous thing: to take beard between us is a thorny subject, problematic, if you want to have to fully serve for others. If you settle for being "rank and file" maybe they do not mess with you.
If, when going to preach, people would say to me "can you wear a beard?" I will give you a short answer: yes, of course. The most extensive answer is the one I mentioned above.
A well-groomed beard in Spain is not at all a sign of rebelliousness or careless dress. The King of Spain has a beard. The previous prime minister too. When preaching, it does not attract attention.
Someone will say: "Videos and broadcasting are prepared taking into account the society or brotherhood of North America" To which I will reply that it is said again and again that the Governing Body intends an "international flavor" in our publications and videos, collecting scenes from everywhere, even the clothes. So, why is not it seen in the videos, or in the pictures in our magazines an elder directing the Watchtower study with a beard? Why are all seen with beards unbelievers? Why, when you progress, you see them shaving?
I find that it is a minor matter whether I wear a beard or not. That's why I will not leave it, to avoid more complications than the many I have in my life. But what is not a minor issue is that we are imposed the conscience of others
(2 Corinthians 1:24) “Not that we are the masters over your faith, but we are fellow workers for your joy”

Reminds me that the Bethel Elder who was also the head of Purchasing, at Bethel, and who worked for Dean Songer in 1979, suddenly came back from a two week vacation with a beard, very well trimmed, and short. He actually looked better with the beard, too. But everyone knew what would happen to him. For one thing, Dean Songer wore a crewcut and a thin black tie, so he always looked like one of those guys in the Houston control room during a Gemini or early Apollo flight.
An article had come out at (about) the exact same time that he grew the beard, which made him seem "rebellious" to most of us, including me. Although I didn't know him, and it might have easily been a coincidence, since the article was no doubt accepted for publication at least two months earlier. The article said:
*** g79 4/22 pp. 27-28 When Another’s Conscience Is Involved ***
The same counsel applies when it comes to wearing beards or certain articles of clothing. In some locations people still view beards as identifying rebellious elements in society.
It was too late for the next issue, but a month later, a small "Watching the World" item was included, that did not seem like a coincidence:
*** g79 5/22 p. 30 Watching the World ***
The U.S. Supreme Court recently let stand a District Court ruling that a supermarket chain has the right to maintain its “no beards” rule for some employees. A man who was fired for refusal to shave had brought suit. He said he has a skin disease common among black men that can result in irritation or infection when short hairs curl back into the skin. The District Court had ruled that “the grocery chain had a business purpose for the rule which overrode its slight impact on employees,” according to American Medical News.
The California State Senate has ruled that, in the Senate chambers, men must wear “appropriate attire,” including coats and ties. The senator who proposed the resolution declared that “appearances are important,” and that a certain amount of dignity was expected by the public. Certainly this is also true of those who profess to represent the highest Lawmaker in the universe, Jehovah God.
The newly bearded brother in question was not black, but at the time, at least one black brother (also an elder) was asking if he could grow a beard due to a serious skin condition from ingrown whiskers after a shave. It was already beginning to be allowed in congregations in the US for some black brothers, but that allowance was considered a slippery slope.
 

The usual treatment of the subject follows the idea that it was just a natural part of the mid-to-late 19th century style for men.
*** g00 1/22 p. 24 A Close Shave ***
In ancient Greek society, beards were normally worn by all except the nobility, who were often clean-shaven. In Rome the habit of shaving seems to have started in the second century B.C.E., and for several centuries thereafter, a daily shave remained the custom.
With the fall of the Roman Empire, however, the beard once again prevailed, doing so for 1,000 years until the second half of the 17th century, when shaving became the vogue. The clean-shaven look continued through the 18th century. But then, by the mid-to-late 19th century, the pendulum began to swing the other way. Hence, photographs of C. T. Russell, the first president of the Watch Tower Society, and fellow Christian W. E. Van Amburgh show both men wearing stylish, well-trimmed beards that were dignified and appropriate for their time. In the early part of the 20th century, however, shaving enjoyed a resurgence of popularity that has endured in most countries to our day.
But here's is what those who were there at the time remembered about Russell and Rutherford. We already know that a cult had developed around Russell, and it included persons wanting to dress like him and look like him:
*** jv chap. 6 p. 65 A Time of Testing (1914-1918) ***
Others, on account of their deep respect for Brother Russell, seemed more concerned with trying to copy his qualities and develop a sort of cult around him.
This  example is A H MacMillan telling about Rutherford's ideas in 1918/1919, wanting to crush all this worship of Russell, when MacMillan still did not believe he could do it. (From Faith on the March, 1957, p.106. Further excerpts are included from later chapters.)

. . .

. . .

, , ,

. . .

I threw in a few more excerpts than I needed to, because it gives the correct idea that the primary way to push the Russellites out was to get them used to more humble and mundane types of preaching, similar to the way that colporteurs had been distributing the books from door to door, rather than only preaching as elders who would dress up in long black frock coats and beards and imitate the manners of C.T.Russell.
*** yb74 pp. 97-98 Part 1—Germany ***
But more equipment was needed. For that reason Brother Balzereit asked Brother Rutherford for permission to buy a rotary press. Brother Rutherford saw the necessity and agreed, but on one condition. He had noticed that over the years Brother Balzereit had grown a beard very similar to the one that had been worn by Brother Russell. His example soon caught on, for there were others who also wanted to look like Brother Russell. This could give rise to a tendency toward creature worship, and Brother Rutherford wanted to prevent this. So during his next visit, within hearing of all the Bible House family, he told Brother Balzereit that he could buy the rotary press but only on the condition that he shave off his beard. Brother Balzereit sadly agreed and afterward went to the barber.
*** yb75 p. 148 Part 2—United States of America ***
He says: “Modification of viewpoints respecting scriptures and matters of procedure seemed to be constant during these years. For example, it was in 1927. . .  For that matter, the year before, during the London, England, convention of May 25-31, 1926, Brother Rutherford spoke from the platform while attired in a business suit, instead of the formal black frock coat that had long been worn by public speakers among Jehovah’s Christian witnesses. Another change in viewpoint involved the “cross and crown” symbol [popularized under Russell's presidency].

To make a very long story very short, almost to the point of abbreviation .... and trying to stay on topic ....
In the past 57 years, I have been in the "little back room, Room 101", about 17 times, being "counseled" by Elders that did not like "something" about me ... that I worked a lot of overtime, that I rode a Honda 350 motorcycle to the Kingdom Hall, that I "refused" to provide a telephone for my wife,  ad nauseum ... and I REALLY HATE BULLIES! ... but I digress ... and about 8 or so of those times it was to get me to cut off my beard.  One time it was because of my mustache. During the 60's it was because my hair came down just perceptively below the collar.
In one congregation in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, I had no problem with the beard ... and even got a recommendation letter to go work at the Bethel Branch Office construction in Peru ... and in all others, I was castigated, and even forbidden to go out in Service until I shaved off my beard.
After eight discussions, and no valid scriptural reasoning, all joy in doing what I was doing was destroyed ... but it bothered me A LOT that stuff like this was being inflicted on the global Brotherhood, in almost EVERY congregation I had ever attended. 
If they could do it to me... they WERE doing it to other Brothers ... and things similar to this.
Based on all available real evidence, it seemed to me that in order to be a watchtower approved Elder you had to be qualified as follows:
1.) clueless
2.) petty
3.) irrational
4.be a "Company Man", through and through.
5.) and have no pangs of conscience whatsoever for being a bully.
To be fair, I have also run across Engineers and Doctors that shared these traits, but they did not operate in an environment that ENCOURAGED this behavior.
The other day I mentioned in a comment that I envied Anna, and she replied that she knew that ... because she still seems to have the joy in the Truth that has been systematically beaten out of me.
I miss the man I used to be.
A lot!
I did have a choice, however ... either "get with the program", or keep my self respect.
It has gotten better over the years, but only marginally, but I have endured things far, far worse that these things I have mentioned ... and I will endure things like this also.
When my Dad died, about ten years ago, he asked me to shave off my beard ...  he also never liked it .... and  I have been clean shaven since then.
I loved my Dad.
I HATE BULLIES!
I am 72 now, and in marginal health .... and can see the end of the "conveyor belt" on which I stand, and it bothers me.
I am too old and fragile to carry on my back bags of heavy stones for someone else's entertainment.
 
 
 
 

Of course, there was that "God-damned" snake in the grass back in Eden. It was cursed to crawl on the ground and lick the dust with its [forked] tongue.
Then there were those pigs that allowed themselves to be possessed by demons, and were driven to commit suicide.
Certain animals might have listened to communication from God to be able to receive a name from Adam. The same could be said for the animals that listened to communication from God to get on Noah's ark. Or for ravens to find Elijah to bring him food. Or, perhaps even a big fish who nearly snacked on Jonah. And there's that special relationship between Jehovah and Leviathan and Behemoth.
God gives animals "meat in due season" (food at the proper time):
(Psalm 104:27) . . .All of them wait for you To give them their food in its season. And a donkey evidently saved a man's life by ascertaining an invisible angel.
On a serious note, I think most people agree that many persons have an unbalanced view of pets. But it's also easy to get unbalanced in the direction of disdaining pets and animals. Remember that Jehovah himself rejoices at his works which obviously includes his many interactions with animals according to the context of Psalm 104. 
(Psalm 104:28-31) . . .What you give them, they gather. When you open your hand, they are satisfied with good things. 29 When you hide your face, they are disturbed. If you take away their spirit, they die and return to the dust. 30 If you send out your spirit, they are created, And you renew the surface of the ground. 31 The glory of Jehovah will last forever. Jehovah will rejoice in his works.

To me, 1 Tim 6:20 seems more related to the so-called knowledge that comes from inside the congregation, because this would be consistent with the prior context of 1 Timothy. The idea of falsely called wisdom from the outside is referred to especially in the first three chapters of 1 Corinthians, which @Outta Here referred to. Not that the idea is wrong, but bringing up 1 Tim 6:20 in the context of something that the JW Organization should be particularly good at seems wrong to me. That's because I believe it refers to something that SHOULD be a pet peeve of every Witness about a particular habit of the Watchtower writers that continues to get us in trouble.
We very often, historically, have made claims about certain interpretations of the scriptures that are completely unnecessary, and which turn out to be things that we end up dropping when the contradictions to actual events or other scriptures become too untenable to stretch belief any further. I could relist every single teaching which has had to be updated to make this point.
But each of those interpretations was treated as knowledge when it was taught. Even though they turned out to be false, and required updating. Just because we like to avoid the word false, and call it "refinements" or "increasing light" changes nothing about the falsehood of the previously called knowledge.
But spiritual food does not have a shelf life. Those false teachings were never spiritual food to begin with. There has NEVER been a reason to turn a specific interpretation into "knowledge."

That's good advice. I really did take a risk in guessing that @Bubba Johnson Jr also had in mind how Brother Splane's "Chart of the Ages" could be related to 1 Thess 5. It turned out that I was right, and that this was not a distraction from the subject matter, but ended up getting right to the heart of the subject matter.
To me, the mistake that Russell made with the pyramids also gets exactly to the real heart of the matter. This is why, as a joke, I did something similar with Splane's chart to what Russell claimed he did with the charts of the crisscrossing drains and ducts that were built into the Pyramid. I won't discuss the pyramid topic in full here, but if anyone else is interested in a serious discussion I'm up for it under another topic heading.
Your own post was typical. A few things right, a few things wrong, a few WT quotes with unrelated information that you believe defended Russell. You add information that you pretend is not already simple and obvious so that you can call others ignorant and deceptive. Unfortunately, even if you already see where you were wrong, I still have come to expect only more attacks, arrogance, name calling and diversions.
If you want anyone to take you seriously, I recommend a method that gives more weight to facts and evidence, rather than just bluster and arrogance.