ComfortMyPeople

I've been thinking about this claim for a while. I don't consider Carl Olof Jonsson nor Raymond Franz to be apostate. Not apostates from Christianity, nor apostates from Jehovah's Witnesses, nor apostates from the Watch Tower Society.
The reason is because they didn't "go out from among us." Both of them acquiesced for several years. Both of them were kicked out -- pushed out, instead of just leaving. They didn't go out on their own. And questioning certain doctrines does not constitute leaving the religion, according to directives given in our publications today. Besides most of the doctrines that were questioned have already now been shown to be incorrect anyway. The 2010 change to the generation doctrine was already an admission that 1914 was no longer tenable as the start of the generation that would see Armageddon within their lifespans. Back in 1980, Brother Schroeder himself had questioned this doctrine when he proposed that the Governing Body change that date for the beginning of the generation from 1914 to 1957. I don't think this makes Brother Schroeder an apostate, nor would it even if he had been disfellowshipped over that proposal.
So yes, I think R.Franz should get credit for mentioning Carl Jonsson. They both had studied the same material on chronology, and both of them had decided to go to the experts. But one of them (Jonsson) had decided to carefully question the Society first, and give them several opportunities to respond, and even several years to respond to specific points, before finally going public with the research he collected. So, even after becoming convinced in his own mind, he acquiesced to Witness protocol. Even though he did not originate much of this research, he made it accessible to many more Witnesses. It was very important research in my opinion, especially as it cleared up the problem that the Watch Tower Society was facing at the time. He basically found that the Biblical, scholarly, historical and archaeological evidence perfectly supported the Bible's accounts and resolved the chronology issues that the Watch Tower had been struggling with, changing, stretching, and fretting over for over 100 years. When a Christian Witness has a gift and talent for research, it is a fine thing to share it with others -- to bring one's gift upon the altar -- especially after Carl Jonsson had given the WTS the benefit of the doubt that they would handle things appropriately in time.
Almost exactly a year after Jonsson's manuscript got to Bethel, Brother Bert Schroeder traveled to WT Branches in Europe in 1978 with the idea of building a case against Carl Jonsson during a couple of these meetings. I traveled a good portion of this trip to about 10 of our European branches with Brother Schroeder and met up with him at several of the same cities he visited. But, after breaking schedule in Athens, I was not in Wiesbaden, Copenhagen or Oslo on the same days, and I knew almost nothing of any portion of Schroeder's meetings regarding Jonsson. It was a few months later that I was told that Jonsson's document had now been at Bethel for a year already, still spending almost all of that time on a shelf, untouched.
This is quite true, but just because the Society made many mistakes about "1914" and the "1914 generation" over the course of many years, it doesn't make them evil. The intention was probably very good on the part of almost all believers in the doctrine, in all its forms at least between 1879 and up until 2010. The idea that the Watchtower could make very specific claims about certain dates might have been based on haughtiness and presumptuousness, but there is no intention to be presumptuous or haughty. So I don't think even a falsehood need be labeled "evil" in any way. 
Quite true. I'm guessing you are referring to C.Jonsson's book influencing R.Franz. I'm referring to the dozens of disingenuous ways that our chronology doctrine had been supported, although, fortunately, most of these ways of explaining it have now been dropped.
No one need follow in R.Franz' footsteps. It's true that many of the points he made will cause confusion to some. But they are already out there, and this is why they need to be explained and discussed honestly. If they are true, we should be prepared for how we deal with such truths. If they aren't true, we need to search out evidence to defend against those points. But, no matter what, they need not result in leaving the Witnesses or getting disfellowshipped. Because what happened to R.Franz has nothing to do with whether the points he makes in his book are accurate and true. His books can and will be misused. Just as encyclopedias, and websites, and Watchtowers are misused.
But if he said some things that are true, do they suddenly become untrue just because R.Franz was the one who pointed them out?
R.Franz pointed out that the generation doctrine was going to have to change again in the next few years. He turned out to be right. But do you say he was wrong just it because he said it in his book? R.Franz pointed out that it was the Watch Tower Society that put restrictions on our ministry in Mexico and not the Mexican government. It was the Watch Tower Society that later lifted those restrictions on our work when they determined that the circumstances were right. R.Franz pointed out that the situation with imprisonment of brothers in South Korea and other areas was about to change because it had already received enough votes to change. (But then Lloyd Barry reversed his vote, so that nothing changed.)  We know that it finally changed more recently, after a long delay. But do you doubt the accuracy of the R.Franz book? If so, on what basis, specifically. Just because it was R.Franz who pointed it out?

I should mention that these comments I had made were never made to defend R.Franz. In fact, as I recall, these comments were made under a different topic, and someone apparently moved them here because I happened to mention R.Franz in my response.
But back to your question that starts out with the words, "So if Raymond was a proven liar." I'm not sure what you are referring to. I've never heard anyone claim that R.Franz was a proven liar. If anyone ever said that, I'd be very interested in what they were referring to. It might be very useful to point to something inaccurate* in his book. I'm sure the average Witness who never knew him could easily get the idea he was "liar," but I have never heard anyone who knew him at Bethel ever say that anything in his book was inaccurate. Quite the opposite in fact.
[I found a couple inaccuracies, by the way, such as when in CoC, he mentioned that the Pope and bishops can speak as if they are "infallible" in the minds of Catholics. He should not have said "and bishops" unless he was referring only to previous "bishops of Rome," which are the popes.]
And by the way, R.Franz was an apostate. So if there was even one inaccuracy in any of his books, don't you think the Watchtower Society, or someone at least, should have pointed it out? What he exposed caused a lot of controversy. Pointing out even one inaccuracy would have helped quell the controversy and defend the Society.
But the problem, as best as I can see it, was not that he said anything untrue, but that his motive was to expose the human side of the organization and its decisions. It was to show how the Governing Body worked together at that time, and examples of how decisions and changes were made. And it showed its very human side, with its faults, mistakes, and interactions of personality. If you worked inside Bethel at that time and worked closely with several of the people he speaks about, you'd already know that his descriptions made perfect sense as they matched everything you could know about these persons. What none of us could know about, however, was what it was like inside any of those meetings of the Governing Body. And it turns out that it, if he is correct in his descriptions, then this is exactly what we would have expected anyway, knowing the personalities of these brothers as we saw and heard them acting and speaking on a daily basis. He speaks very kindly and respectfully of many of them. You can tell they were friends, just as you already knew if you were at Bethel at this time. But it becomes easy to understand how key decisions could be delayed or swayed by more outspoken and stronger personalities on the GB.
I don't know what you might mean here. No accounts were ever challenged, as far as I know. At least not by anyone who knew him. Especially not by Fred Franz, who knew him very well. If you have evidence to the contrary you should share it, especially because, as Witnesses, we don't want to be known for making false accusations.
Not at all. I just share what I know and what I think. And you can share what you know and what you think. That's how we learn. That's how forums such as this work. I would never want someone to trust my words and my words only.

What would you say to Jesus when he handpicked Judas Iscariot as one of his 12 Apostles?

Fair enough. I think it's true that we haven't yet gotten to much that is constructive on this particular topic. But, as there is a time to tear down and a time build up, it probably doesn't make much sense to offer an alternative yet, while so few have tried to explain what's wrong with the current teaching. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, as they say.
As far as "liking to talk" goes, guilty. But I would hope it's that way based on the scripture quoted earlier: "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks." Still, I would hope that some would see all this talk as a labor of love and concern, and even see it for it truly is, in my mind, loyalty to our brotherhood.
I could tell that going back to Russell's view on the signs in the sun, moon and stars seemed irrelevant to you. I'm guessing that you are seeing too many things tied together under a single topic and that many of the items you have seen as off-topic have made it difficult to deal with so many items at once. But it's really true that a misunderstanding of 1914, and a misunderstanding of the "sign" is the foundation issue that, when resolved, resolves the whole "overlapping generation" issue with it.
The fact is that Russell understood Jesus point about NOT looking for a sign. Russell made it clear that wars, earthquakes, and famines were NO part of a sign. He understood this. And that understanding makes sense in the context of the rest of Matthew 24. You won't need a sign if it's going to come without any further warning, like a thief in the night, at an hour you do not think to be it. But the tendency to want a sign, in spite of Jesus counsel, overtook Russell and the Bible Students and they continued to believe in those heavenly signs, as if they were already progressing.
The exact dates were not important, except to show that they fit the idea of "last days" at the time. But the idea that they could find dozens of secular quotes in support of these dates could be another lesson for us. What they missed, however, is that these quotes were not being collected in support of the Bible's warning about looking for a sign. I think we do the same thing today when we collect 1914 quotes. We are trying to overcome the Bible's clear warning not to look for a sign in things like wars, earthquakes, famines, etc. And we end up convincing ourselves.
 

*** w13 3/15 p. 23 par. 16 Jehovah—Our Place of Dwelling ***
In what ways will Jehovah prove to be “a real dwelling” during that tumultuous time? We will have to wait and see. But of this we can be sure: Like the Israelites at the time of the Exodus, the “great crowd” will remain organized, ever alert to divine direction. (Rev. 7:9; read Exodus 13:18.) That direction will come theocratically, probably by means of the congregation arrangement. Indeed, the many thousands of congregations around the world appear to be linked to the protective “interior rooms” foretold at Isaiah 26:20. (Read.) Do you value the congregation meetings? Do you act promptly on the direction Jehovah provides through the congregation arrangement?—Heb. 13:17. *** w09 5/15 p. 8 Where Should You Be When the End Comes? ***
Soon the end will come for Satan’s wicked world. How Jehovah will protect his people in the fear-inspiring ‘day of his anger,’ we do not yet know. (Zeph. 2:3) Regardless of where we are and what our situation is at that time, however, we can be sure that our survival will depend on our faith in Jehovah and our obedience to him. Meanwhile, we should cultivate a proper attitude toward what Isaiah’s prophecy refers to as our “interior rooms.”     “Enter Into Your Interior Rooms”     “Go, my people, enter into your interior rooms, and shut your doors behind you,” states Isaiah 26:20. “Hide yourself for but a moment until the denunciation passes over.” This prophecy may have had its first fulfillment in 539 B.C.E. when the Medes and the Persians conquered Babylon. Upon entering Babylon, Cyrus the Persian apparently commanded everyone to stay indoors because his soldiers were ordered to execute any found out-of-doors. In our day, the “interior rooms” of this prophecy could be closely associated with the more than 100,000 congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses around the world. Such congregations play an important role in our lives. They will continue to do so through “the great tribulation.” (Rev. 7:14) God’s people are commanded to go into their “interior rooms” and hide themselves “until the denunciation passes over.” It is vital that we develop and maintain a wholesome attitude toward the congregation and be firmly resolved to stay in close association with it.  

My point was to show the possibility and then some practical reasons that we are told NOT to search for the sign in our day.

I appreciate that. And I held the same view for many years. But we should all share our opinions if our intent in sharing is right. "Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks." And, as Witnesses, we have put ourselves under a certain obligation to share publicly and not hold back, willing to defend our beliefs to anyone who asks.
(Matthew 13:51, 52) . . .” 52 Then he said to them: “That being the case, every public instructor who is taught about the Kingdom of the heavens is like a man, the master of the house, who brings out of his treasure store things both new and old.” I do see a problem in trying to share our concerns in the congregational setting, where it could cause division, but the Internet is already full of comments from all angles on this topic, and adding my own opinion here merely allows someone to evaluate it without the need to concern themselves about whether the opinion need to be given a second thought, unless they are also concerned. For all anyone really knows, this opinion of mine could have come from an opposer, an elder, an apostate, a Bible study, the wife of a GB member, a complete outsider, a newspaper researcher, a "Russian" trying to interfere with a US election, or a concerned publisher.
If anyone wishes, my opinions can be challenged, as they ought to be. If they are worthless, someone can point that out. If they are only partially worthwhile, and partially worthless, someone (like you) can help filter it. To me, if an answer to these objections is obvious from anyone, then any other person's opinion about it is welcome.
(Proverbs 27:17) 17 As iron sharpens iron, So one man sharpens his friend. The public forum of course is as old as elders and judges who were found discussing issues and concerns at the city gates, or the Areopagus in ancient Greece. Having found a public forum here, it doesn't mean I think that a Christian should just publicly expose the sins of others, or constantly tear down. All matters such as these doctrinal issues should be made a matter of serious prayer first, even on a forum such as this.
(Ecclesiastes 3:2-7) A time to plant and a time to uproot what was planted;  3 ... A time to tear down and a time to build up;  4 A time to weep and a time to laugh; ...  5 A time to throw stones away and a time to gather stones together;... 6 A time to search and a time to give up as lost; A time to keep and a time to throw away;  7 A time to rip apart and a time to sew together; A time to be silent and a time to speak;

I agree that this would be a much more humble and discreet, much less presumptuous than proposing a specific belief without real scriptural support, and then just asking everyone to accept it as the solution.
The brothers don't actually focus on "this generation," they focus on the correctness of 1914 and then just keep changing, stretching and twisting the interpretation of "this generation" so that it doesn't interfere with the correctness of 1914. 
But we actually have no problem at all understanding the actual meaning of Jesus' words. They meant exactly what Jesus said, that the group of people he was speaking to would actually see this "parousia" (visitation) or "synteleia" (destruction) on Jerusalem. It would happen within the lifetimes of at least some of them. There are many scriptures, and even history itself, that bears out this fact.
It's only a modern-day interpretation of these words, when attached to Jesus world-wide parousia, that we have difficulty with. That's another topic of course.
I don't know what you already know about the 1914 doctrine, but if you can see reasons to question our understanding of "this generation" I'm guessing you would see at least ten times as many scriptural reasons to question the 1914 doctrine.
I absolutely agree that the world changed in 1914. But what does that have to do with the Bible? What does that have to do with Russell's or the Watch Tower's predictions about 1914?
Let's say that I had seen the Brooklyn Bridge construction start in 1869 and then predicted that in 14 years (1883) all that construction would finally be abandoned as a complete failure and it would be crushed into oblivion within a matter of months. But 14 years later it was completed and opened for traffic and has been in use for well over 100 years now. Does this mean I can claim that I predicted 1883 just because SOMETHING happened with the Brooklyn Bridge that year? I guess it's true that, if I were very dishonest, I could claim I was correct all along because it "started" to deteriorate in 1883.
What happened in 1914 was very close to the opposite of what Russell predicted. And, besides, there is nothing Biblical about the date 1914.

I have no problem understanding that these are the last days. Paul warned Timothy that Timothy that (because he was in the last days) he would have to deal with critical times, people who only loved themselves, people who were disloyal, people with no natural affection, etc., and this helped Timothy realize the times he was living in, and what to expect. I have no problem with the idea that many things have gone from bad to worse since that first century, and that this system doesn't seem like it can go on any longer. And all these evidences of the last days make us hope and pray for a new system that ever so much closer.
By the way, when you mention the question "how do we know he is near at the door?" you might realize that you are inadvertently exposing one of the inconsistencies of our interpretation of Matthew 24. In our interpretation, Jesus is already present, and THEN the signs supposedly arrive over the next 104-plus years.
The topic of the "sign" is another one for another discussion. Many persons, including Russell himself, read Matthew 24 to prove that Jesus was warning the disciples that they should NOT look for any advance signs on earth because none would be given. Jesus said that wars and earthquakes, and famine, and pestilence and persecution etc., would continue to go on just as it always had (for the last 18 centuries, per Russell), but that these are NOT signs of the end, and not to be quickly shaken by such things. Russell seemed to ignore, however, that the warning also included not to start listening to people who look at these as signs and will therefore say that Jesus is here or there, but just not visible to them right now. Because when the parousia occurs, it will actually be without any extra warning; it will come as a thief in the night, and it won't be invisible, but suddenly and brightly, as visible as lightning that shines from side of the heavens all the way to the other side. In other words, Matthew 24 is the opposite of a "composite sign."
The actual sign, would appear in the heavens when it was too late to escape. Here is where Russell and Second Adventists, especially, went wrong. They thought that they could already see those signs in the heavens. They saw them in 1780 and 1833, which perfectly fit the belief that the last days had begun in 1799. The rest of this post will be excerpts from Studies in the Scriptures, Vol 4, to show how easy it is to lock in on "signs" and how strongly entrenched these beliefs were, so that the WTS was promoting these specific teachings even until the 1930's. I have skipped about a dozen secular references that Russell quotes to show just how widely recognized these "signs" were from other authorities, much like our more current references to how secular authorities recognize how the world changed in 1914:
And they were given into her power, and she wore out the saints of the Most High for a time, times and a half time--1260 years--until A.D. 1799. And this long persecution, in which "many were purified and made white and tried," and in which the Mother of Harlots was "drunk with the blood of the saints and the martyrs of Jesus" (Rev. 17:6) ended as we have already shown, practically in 1776 and actually in 1799 when the Pope and his authority were humiliated before the World.*
Understanding clearly, then, that it is signs that will follow the tribulation "of those days" that our Lord refers to, we inquire respecting the very definitely described signs--the darkening of the sun and moon, and the falling of the stars. . . .
On May 19, 1780 (still "in those days," the 1260 years of Papal power, but after that power had begun to wane and the brunt of the tribulation had passed) a phenomenal darkening of the sun occurred, for which scientists of that time and since have never been able to account. That this was no ordinary occurrence is sufficiently established by the following competent testimony--
The noted astronomer Herschel, says:
"The dark day in Northern America was one of those wonderful phenomena of nature which will always be read of with interest, but which philosophy is at a loss to explain."
Webster's Dictionary, 1869 edition, under the head of Vocabulary of Noted Names, says:
"The dark day, May 19, 1780--so called on account of a remarkable darkness on that day extending over all New England. In some places, persons could not see to read common print in the open air for several hours together. Birds sang their evening songs, disappeared, and became silent; fowls went to roost; cattle sought the barn-yard; and candles were lighted in the houses. The obscuration began about ten o'clock in the morning, and continued till the middle of the next night, but with differences of degree of duration in different places." . . .
The Falling Stars
Half a century passed before the next sign appeared, the falling of the stars from heaven, as when a fig tree casteth her unripe fruit when shaken of a mighty wind. Our Lord's words found a fulfilment (though not their complete and only fulfilment, as we shall see later) in the wonderful meteoric showers of the early morning of Nov. 13, 1833. Those inclined to quibble by urging that "the fixed stars did not fall" are reminded that our Lord said nothing about fixed stars falling, and that fixed stars could not fall: their falling would prove that they were not fixed. The Scriptures do not distinguish between stars and meteors as is commonly done in our day.
Shooting stars, and even meteoric showers are not uncommon every year, and some years more than others. It is computed that 400,000 small meteors fall to our earth annually. But these are nothing in comparison to the great shower of Nov. 13, 1833, in which millions on millions fell.
 

Of course, Daniel says the meaning is sealed up until the time of the end. Revelation makes reference to this and says it was now (in the late first century) the time for the sealed meanings to be revealed, and the sealed books to be opened up. This could mean that Revelation is now revealing them, per the name of the book. Or it could mean that they are revealed in a later "time of the end" thousands of years later when Jehovah reveals the meanings again to a faithful and discreet slave class. 
Although, as Witnesses, we generally prefer that last interpretation, it seems meaningless if, as you say, we are still hitting dead ends and not worried about being ridiculed for it.
I'm more concerned that our speculation about the "times and seasons" is what indicates a lack of faith in God's Word. Always needing something tangible to hang onto rather than walking by faith is what Jesus and the other Bible writers were warning us about when they said things like:
(1 Thessalonians 5:1) . . .Now as for the times and the seasons, brothers, you need nothing to be written to you. This is an unfortunate set of circumstances to bring upon ourselves so unnecessarily. I talked to an elder in 2004 who started saying that he just knows the end has to happen within 10 years, and if it doesn't happen in 10 years he'll go from door to door telling people we were wrong. That 10 years has passed, and he's a bit "shaken" in his faith. (Reminded me of my own grandmother who once said: "If 1914 is wrong, then we're in the wrong religion.") The real problem is that the religion need not be tied so closely to a specific range of time. This is the problem I put in the #1 problem with the "generation" doctrine in the very first post here.
 

I'm more concerned that it is un-Christian, not just unwise.
Actually, evidence has already been presented in the past, here on this forum and many other places, showing that 1914 was not predicted. Not biblically, not historically, not even by the Watch Tower Society. I'd say the evidence against 1914 is overwhelming, but this is of course just an opinion.
I don't think I have a "more correct" definition than the ones that the Watch Tower publications, and every Greek language resource, and all Bible dictionaries, and other scholarsly resources, already consistently give. So I am basing this "complaint" on the Watchtower's own definition of a generation. And yes it can be established Biblically.
However, we are still discussing point #4 first, which is the one I started with. And, as you can see, a few other side topics have arisen out of that discussion. We haven't got to this point #3 yet. It's imminent, though.
No need to concern ourselves about what apostates and skeptics do. The Bible gives plenty and perfect solutions and alternatives.
Perhaps it isn't based on any belief that people had at any time, but for some reason the Watchtower says that it is. It states that the persons in group one had to have readily discerned the sign they were seeing in 1914. We can easily show that they did not, which shows that there is a crack in the reasoning, or that the teaching was not thought through very carefully before presenting it in public (as Brother Splane has done on JW Broadcasting). In fact, Rutherford published in a later Watchtower, explicitly admitting that they "did not discern" the sign at the time, using his own word "discern." We have already discussed that portion of the issue in a discussion here over a year ago. Perhaps I'll dig out that discussion and see if it adds anything to point #4 before moving on to point #3.
That's quite all right. I'm always anxious to read well thought out responses to anything I say here.
I don't reject that these are the last days, and I don't reject that the changes in the world, especially since 1914, are of utmost concern. These concerns can and should be used in our ministry to help people see that God's Kingdom is the only real solution to mankind's problems.

I think that Jesus understood well that Leaders would naturally appear in all religious organizations and some would position themselves as "high council" "Pope" "Archbishop" "governing bodies" "leadership of the synod" "president of the Sanhedrin" etc. The point of Jesus' illustration of the faithful and unfaithful slaves in the household was a warning about how some of these would begin to "lord it over" the household of faith, trying to actually be "governors of their faith."
I find that the letters of Peter provide an excellent commentary on Matthew 24, and it serves well on this illustration, too. Just after the point about faithful stewards, quoted above from 1 Pet 4:11, there is another point at the start of the next chapter that perfectly explains the Matthew 24:45 parable, including the "reward" for setting the right example, just as in Matthew 24:
(1 Peter 5:1-4) . . .Therefore, as a fellow elder, a witness of the sufferings of the Christ and a sharer of the glory that is to be revealed, I make this appeal to the elders among you: 2 Shepherd the flock of God under your care, serving as overseers, not under compulsion, but willingly before God; not for love of dishonest gain, but eagerly; 3 not lording it over those who are God’s inheritance, but becoming examples to the flock. 4 And when the chief shepherd has been made manifest, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. Still, in the case of the Governing Body, they might not be as averse to questioning as you think, if it is done in a useful and upbuilding way. What they are probably more afraid of is the chaos that a forum like this would dump on them, and the chaos trying to control such ideas from being accepted willy-nilly and randomly. It would be difficult for them to keep up with all the crazy ideas that might be spreading if people were encouraged to speak up.
 
 

I meant that they cannot be exclusively God's mouthpiece, because if Jehovah can bring draw praise from a child ("Out of the mouths of babes" Mt 21:16 quoting Ps 8:2) then that child is also God's mouthpiece.
The Psalm 19 says:
(Psalm 19:1-4) 19 The heavens are declaring the glory of God; The skies above proclaim the work of his hands.  2 Day after day their speech bubbles forth, And night after night they reveal knowledge.  3 There is no speech, and there are no words; Their voice is not heard.  4 But into all the earth their sound has gone out, And to the ends of the inhabited earth their message.. . . So even the heavenly and earthly creations cry out as God's mouthpiece. And therefore all who preach God's good news of his Kingdom are also his mouthpiece. (Compare Romans 10:18 with Psalm 19:4.) Even "rocks" can become Jehovah's mouthpiece if necessary (Luke 19:40). So I can't see a direct connection between the "mouthpiece" and the "anointed" from this.
I should add that In Isaiah 43, Israel representing their God Jehovah against the gods of the nations, became Jehovah's mouthpiece by their actions and avoidance of idolatry. This applied to a nation that was "anointed" but not in the sense in Romans 8/Galatians 4.
Notice too that the verse in 1 Peter 4:11 that said that we should speak as if a mouthpiece for God, actually said "if anyone speaks" without a specific sense of limiting it to the anointed.
Of course, I can't say that you are wrong. I don't know. Perhaps the Greek Scriptures were written just for the anointed. But when Peter speaks of "a new heavens and a new earth which we are awaiting," he seems to include two groups with the word we. When Jesus tells meek people that they shall inherit the earth, we get a sense Jesus is inclusive of more than just the anointed in all his parables and teachings.
My sense is that there really are two groups of persons who hope for life in paradise, and some of these will be in heaven and some on earth. But I get the sense that the Bible is written for the edification of all of us -- every statement, including those about the spirit bearing witness with our spirit. The Bible never says that only an anointed class become "sons" and only "sons" go to heaven, but not "brothers."
(Matthew 23:8-12) 8 But you, do not you be called Rabbi, for one is your Teacher, and all of you are brothers. 9 Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One. 10 Neither be called leaders, for your Leader is one, the Christ. 11 But the greatest one among you must be your minister. 12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted. (At least the verse didn't say, "Neither should any of you be called Governing Body.")
But, of course, there is an even more explicitly clear scripture that includes the "brothers" in the "heavenly calling."
(Hebrews 2:11-3:1) 11 For both the one who is sanctifying and those who are being sanctified all stem from one, and for this reason he is not ashamed to call them brothers, 12 as he says: “I will declare your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will praise you with song.” 13 And again: “I will put my trust in him.” And again: “Look! I and the young children, whom Jehovah gave me.” 14 Therefore, since the “young children” are sharers of blood and flesh, he also similarly shared in the same things, . . . 17 Consequently, he had to become like his “brothers” in all respects, so that he could become a merciful and faithful high priest in things relating to God, in order to offer a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the people. 18 Since he himself has suffered when being put to the test, he is able to come to the aid of those who are being put to the test. 3 Consequently, holy brothers, partakers of the heavenly calling,. . . So, again, I think creating a distinction between brothers, sons, children, etc., is false. All of us call out to our Father, Jehovah, and all of us should call out "Abba," in the sense of a fatherly relationship, because we see Jehovah as "near and dear" to us. 
(Acts 17:27-29) . . .so that they would seek God, if they might grope for him and really find him, although, in fact, he is not far off from each one of us. 28 For by him we have life and move and exist, even as some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also his children.’ 29 “Therefore, since we are the children of God, . . . [Remember that Paul was speaking to persons here, who were not even convinced of Christianity. ] (Matthew 22:37) . . .“‘You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.’
 
That is the reason we ALL should think of God in loving endearing terms like "Abba, Father." But even here the distinction between "Abba" and "Father" has been carried further than the Scriptures actually state. In fact, there are several times in the Greek Scriptures when Aramaic terms are spelled out, and spelling out "Abba, Father" is just one more (actually, it's done 3 times). But in Aramaic it doesn't really just mean "papa" as is a common idea. It really means "father" or "the father."  It's the same in Aramaic as when Jesus prayed a model prayer: "Our Abba, who art in heaven." There is no reason to think that "Abba" is supposed to have a special meaning JUST for the anointed.
In Galatians when the point about sonship is made it is compared with slavery to the fleshly world. Our anointing of the SPIRIT is reflected by our own production of the FRUITS OF THE SPIRIT. (Galatians 5:19, etc)  This is not just for the heavenly class, ALL of us should produce the fruits of the spirit because of the outpouring of the spirit.
Romans, also, in context, if you read the entire chapter (Romans 8 ), is about the difference between the SPIRIT and condemnation of the flesh. Notice that ANYONE who does not live in harmony with the spirit is condemned. So this context is for those who need Jehovah's spirit (Christ's spirit is mentioned here, too), and it includes ALL persons who set their mind on spiritual things instead of fleshly things.
 
(Romans 8:5-9) . . .For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the spirit, on the things of the spirit. 6 For setting the mind on the flesh means death, but setting the mind on the spirit means life and peace; 7 because setting the mind on the flesh means enmity with God, for it is not in subjection to the law of God, nor, in fact, can it be. 8 So those who are in harmony with the flesh cannot please God. 9 However, you are in harmony, not with the flesh, but with the spirit, if God’s spirit truly dwells in you. But if anyone does not have Christ’s spirit, this person does not belong to him. Anyway, these are just my thoughts on it. There are many possible ways to look at this.

This is going to be fun.
The darkness at the time of Jesus’ Crucifixion gives us solid proof — either of the Bible lying or the Bible recording a remarkable truth. The Bible describes two spectacular events on the day of Jesus’ Crucifixion.
Listen to how Mark describes the first: “And when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour” (Mark 15:33 NIV).
If darkness covered the entire land, it would be visible to more than those in Jerusalem. Everybody around the Roman Empire should have seen something, if it was real.
The second event likewise would be visible everywhere. Joel prophesied it and Peter quoted it:
(Acts 2:16, 19–22)
A blood moon occurs during a lunar eclipse. As with the darkness, it should be widely visible, if indeed it happened during Jesus’ crucifixion — as Peter indicates it did.
If we find nothing in the historical record, then it appears the Bible lied.
But do find this in the historical record — well, then things get interesting.
So what do we find?
Thallus was one of the first to write about the darkness at the time of the Crucifixion, writing at about 52 AD/CE. His original work has been lost, but Julius Africanus, an historian who wrote around 221 A.D., quotes Thallus to disagree with him:
Both of Thallus and Julius attest to the darkness as a real event, so much so that they can bicker about the cause.
Phlegon, a Greek historian and author of a detailed chronology in 137 AD/CE, wrote:
This one is especially handy, as it corroborates the exact year and time of day for the darkness, as well as and the earthquake.
Africanus also wrote a five-volume history of the world c. 221 AD/CE. His account is particularly noteworthy both for its length and for his credibility; he had impressed Roman Emperor Alexander Severus so well with his historical rigor that he was put in charge of the Emperor's library in the Pantheon; in other words, he was the most well-known, influential, and well-resourced historian in the Empire.
While I quoted him briefly above to highlight Thallus’ contribution, Africanus’ full paragraph adds a great deal more detail:
This one additionally is valuable given that it mentions the resurrection of the dead and again the earthquake, in addition to the darkness.
Tertullian (second century) also provides a remarkable attestation, writing:
Not only does Tertullian attest to it, but he appeals to how well-recorded the event is in established historical archives of the time. This is perhaps the most significant attribution, given that he cites how extensively the event was recorded and appeals to the public records to prove his point.
The darkness, then, is well-established.
What then do we find about a blood moon?
It turns out that a lunar eclipse did happen on exactly the day the darkness was recorded: April 3, 33 A.D./C.E.

A view of the partial lunar eclipse on August 7, 2017 as seen from Malta in the Mediterranean Sea.
Credit and copyright: Leonard Ellul-Mercer.

The precise data on the partial lunar eclipses of April 3, 33 A.D./C.E.
This blood moon during the day of Jesus’ Crucifixion was so well-known that writers in the early church appealed to it frequently.
Skeptics have long scoffed at these details in the Bible. But like most details in the Scriptures, when you dig into the research, you find the claims verified.
The Bible is not a book of cleverly-invented myths. It records real events that happened in real history. The more we press into the individual details, the more we find them verified.
By Kyle Bair

The GB are not exclusively God's mouthpiece. The heavens declare the glory of Jehovah, as do His creative works on earth; His Word is called that because it is also His mouthpiece; even "the mouths of babes" can become His mouthpiece. And not since the 1980's has the idea been repeated like this.
I believe that if I were seriously questioned about whether I believed the GB were the faithful and discreet slave, I would not be disfellowshipped if I said that I have trouble believing that they are exclusively the "faithful and discreet slave"/"faithful steward"/"faithful and wise servant." I have no trouble believing that the GB are part of a group of faithful and discreet slaves, and that we can allow them to represent the faithful slave in many ways. But that I can't "shake" the idea that Jehovah wants all of us to be faithful and discreet slaves. In fact, Jehovah wants all of to be sure of our teaching so that anyone as stewards can declare our faith as if we are God's spokespersons. This is exactly the thought of the following verse:
(1 Peter 4:10, 11) . . .To the extent that each one has received a gift, use it in ministering to one another as fine stewards of God’s undeserved kindness that is expressed in various ways. 11 If ANYONE speaks, let him do so as speaking pronouncements from God; if anyone ministers, let him do so as depending on the strength that God supplies;. . . [emphasis added] [Edited to add:] (Matthew 13:52) . . .Then he said to them: “That being the case, EVERY public instructor who is taught about the Kingdom of the heavens is like a man, the master of the house, who brings out of his treasure store things both new and old.” [emphasis added, of course] Naturally I would probably need to add that I would never promote this view in the congregation because I feel it might create friction, misunderstanding or division among some. But that I cannot conscientiously believe that Jesus meant that an exclusive group of only eight men constitute the entire reason for Jesus' illustration at the end of Matthew 24.
When Jesus said "Who really is your neighbor?" in the parable of the Good Samaritan, he surely didn't mean that there would be a special "Neighbor" class made up of 8 people somewhere, or a "Good Samaritan" class, or a "robber" class, or an "Innkeeper" class. He meant it as a lesson about what it means to be a true neighbor. I would tell them that I see the "parable of the faithful and unfaithful slave" in the same way. When Jesus said "Who really is the faithful and discreet slave?" he must have similarly meant it as a lesson about what it means to be a true faithful and discreet slave. After all, in 2014 and 2015 we got information (from the GB) telling us not to accept parables as referring to special classes of people unless explicitly explained that way in the Bible itself.

I don't think that title is a bad mantra at all.
If you are looking for perfection, that's great. If you are expecting perfection, then you will be without any kind of brotherhood at all, and Christianity requires a brotherhood.
Everyone will be different. For me, it's not so difficult. Just review all the topics that you are sure of, at least sure enough so that you can express agreement. Emphasize these. On all other topics just say to the study or householder that 'among Jehovah's Witnesses you will find that most of them accept this particular interpretation of the topic, but that it is a difficult topic for many to understand and if they don't understand it or accept it, that a good understanding of the topic may come in time.' Remind them that Jehovah is more concerned with motivations and our love for one another than any particular teaching or specific action. This is clear from Jesus:
(Matthew 7:22, 23) . . .Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them: ‘I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!’ (Matthew 25:34-40) . . .“Then the King will say to those on his right: ‘Come, you who have been blessed by my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the founding of the world. 35 For I became hungry and you gave me something to eat; I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger and you received me hospitably; 36 naked and you clothed me. I fell sick and you looked after me. I was in prison and you visited me.’ 37 Then the righteous ones will answer him with the words: ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and receive you hospitably, or naked and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 In reply the King will say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’ (John 13:35) 35 By this all will know that you are my disciples—if you have love among yourselves.”
Once you know which things you want to emphasize in your ministry, then focus on those things. My motto, difficult as it is for me, attempts the following:
(Philippians 4:8, 9) . . .Finally, brothers, whatever things are true, whatever things are of serious concern, whatever things are righteous, whatever things are chaste, whatever things are lovable, whatever things are well-spoken-of, whatever things are virtuous, and whatever things are praiseworthy, continue considering these things. 9 The things that you learned as well as accepted and heard and saw in connection with me, practice these, and the God of peace will be with you. We have a lot more freedom in our personal ministry than you imply. The most difficult times will likely be the times when you will be inevitably be asked to take on more responsibility. To hold the title of elder, for example, or to take on the assignment of certain talks that must hold strictly to an outline. But the Witnesses still offer a brotherhood in which it is very possible and enjoyable to succeed in a humble ministry of helping others related to you in the faith. For me it is a brotherhood in which I find friendships and a fellowship of believers who will not kill one another in wars, who will not threaten with violence, who will not judge one to a fiery hell, and who see God as a knowable, loving entity we can approach, and who generally share in a common sense of morality. Imperfect? Yes! But who knows? One might even be able to be a force for good from within without really trying. 

Yes. God allows false teachings to be taught to those seeking truth. There is no perfectly true knowledge for all teachings today. We will continue to grow and distinguish right from wrong. We will continue to refine dross from gold.
Yes. God is allowing the Governing Body to teach false teachings as far as we know. There are continuous changes, and therefore continuous admissions that what was previously taught was not completely true, therefore "false." The teachings are not as important as the desire to do God's will. The imperfect and flawed attitudes are not as important as the desire to do God's will. This is why Jesus could say:
(Matthew 23:1-3) . . .Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying: 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the seat of Moses. 3 Therefore, all the things they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds. . .  

Part of my reason for participating with these details is so that we can see that we are NOT expected to understand such things, because they are actually now admitted to be false teachings. It could never have been important to accept false teachings to be a true Christian. 
And a problem I have pointed out before is that Russell made elements of chronology a key part of the criteria by which someone was deemed to be included in the true Bride of Christ, the 144,000, or just an average Christian who is not so spiritual and merely makes it to heaven. That major point of distinction between those who could have been part of the 144,000 and those others he also considered "anointed" (but who didn't quite prove themselves worthy) was this: 
They had to accept that those who had heard about 1844 but gave up on chronology after its failure would not be allowed in the 144,000. They were likened to foolish virgins who let their lamps run out because they did not realize that a kind of call had gone out in 1844, but that the midnight cry was from Barbour's message beginning around 1859 to 1860, and that the Bridegroom actually showed up in 1874. If they had given up on chronology and not listened to Barbour, they missed the midnight cry, and had no oil in their lamps to meet up with the Bridegroom.
Those who didn't accept 1874 could not be a part of the 144,000. This might have created the inertia to allow 1874 to still be taught in the Watchtower as the beginning of Christ's presence all the way up until 1943.

In 1879, the Watch Tower wrote:
We believe that fleshly Israel will, in the near future, be recognized as the chief nation of earth, "Jerusalem be a rejoicing and her people a joy," and that ten men shall lay hold, out of all nations, of the skirts of one Jew, saying, we will go with you, for we have heard that God is with you. (Zech. 8:23.)
Who else would have the right? In Russell's primary view, it was not just the 144,000 who would go to heaven, but ALL Christians, including the "Great Crowd." The difference was that the Great Crowd would be a secondary group who had not quite made it to the level of becoming part of Christ's Bride, and who would not rule as kings and priests. The chosen ones, the 144,000, would be spared the time of chaos that was originally expected to begin around 1910 and last to 1914. The rest of the Christians would live out their earthly life expectancy and die and go to heaven, also enjoying immortality just as the 144,000 do. About 10 years prior to 1914 that time of chaos was moved out to 1915, with Russell teaching that the 144,000 would all be called to heaven by that time.
Part of the reasoning behind changing their doctrine was that the Jews were not moving to Palestine fast enough, although they assumed God would speed it up in his own due time, just before October 1914. But remember that with all the Christians in heaven, the blessings on earth would come through a visible capital, Jerusalem, under invisible guidance from "The Christ." (In Russell's view "The Christ" included Russell himself, along with 139,999 others as the "body" of the Christ, plus Jesus himself as "head" of the Christ.)
The reason God would use a nation handed over to the Romans to destroy was, by this way of thinking, the Hebrew prophets had promised a literal restoration of the Messianic throne, and Jesus was the Jewish King and Messiah, who would fulfill the promise made to fleshly Israel, by being a king ruling from heaven as a government from Jerusalem in Israel distributed those blessings to the rest of the earth. Jesus would be the actual "king" sitting on David's throne, but from heaven, yet still in fulfillment of the promise to restore the throne of David so that all the nations of the earth would bless themselves. This way it would be fulfilled that the "nations would come streaming to Zion" and "ten men would take hold of the skirt of a Jew." (etc., etc.)

I can't answer your question directly. But I will give my opinion that Jehovah did not direct Russell at all on these particular matters of chronology.
You can safely ignore the rest of this post, as it is just going to be my own ramblings about how I come to this particular conclusion and still have respect for what Russell did, without discounting Jehovah's ability to work through any person.
This is a question that I wish had come up under a different topic. Without a set of clear visible miracles, belief in guidance from God is a matter of faith. I believe that Russell had faith that he was guided from God. I don't believe we are supposed to have faith in people when it comes to religious matters. So you get right to the heart of the matter with your question.
Russell may have had guidance from God on several matters. It may be because of a certain type of guidance from God that he viewed traditional religion through a certain filter, looking for a more sensible and rational God. It may have the right time in the late 19th century to meet a religious demand for a more sensible and rational God. This motivation could have worked in either direction. He was a product of wonderment at the quick strides that apparently allowed science to overtake religion in the United States. Or, Jehovah needed persons like him to begin promoting something that would attract good-hearted Christians to coalesce at such a critical stage in history.
In either case, we know that Russell felt a motivation and an overall direction that might have led him to read the Bible, or listen to religious preachers and teachers with that certain "filter" that moved him to choose, not just one doctrine, but a set of unrelated doctrines that quickly shook up traditional Christianity.
He picked a lot of these doctrines from Second Adventists even though most of Adventism had been recently shamed and very few wanted to be associated with Adventism. He picked a lot of it from "Age-to-Come" doctrine, even though the Age-to-Come teachers rejected him. Adventists, having been shaken, disappointed, and embarrassed in the 1840's, 1850's, 1860's, and most recently in 1873 and 1874 had already been making themselves more and more unwelcome in traditional churches as they kept updating their constantly failing end-times beliefs. These end-time groups were more apt to look for alternative doctrines from the traditional churches, and many had become non-Trinitarian, and many had become non-Hellfire believers, non-Immortal Soul believers, non-combatants, etc. Adventists hadn't developed these teachings themselves, necessarily, but were also picking them up from rogue Baptists, rogue Episcopalians, rogue philosophers, etc. The way I read the stories of several semi-successful Adventists is that they had to include a strong non-chronology angle to their doctrines rather than merely promoting another date. (Seventh-Day Adventists are a good example.)
We might assume that, sooner or later, of course, one of these groups was going to hit on something that would attract some special, additional attention. (Kind of like the way a good idea, a song or video or even a false conspiracy can "go viral.") Or someone would soon hit on a specific eclectic mix of doctrines that would be seen as Truth. Or a set of these doctrines would merely land in the lap of a skilled orator, writer and promoter. Or some combination of the above.
All we can see is the end result of Russell's eclecticism. And we might have faith that Jehovah took a specific interest in Russell's talents. He had a talent for speaking, writing, and used them to shake up traditional Christianity by promoting that collection of Bible doctrines that gave a very different, but refreshing look, to Christianity. Were these doctrines really random and the ones that made no sense would finally just "shake out" from the mix? Or did Russell just happen to have a good heart and a love for God that allowed him to read the Bible with a filter that helped him weed out many of the traditional doctrines that were not rational?
Depending on the significance we attach to some of the specific doctrines that Russell ended up promoting in tandem that no one else was promoting, we also might consider that Jehovah was guiding at least some of his decisions and efforts.
There are many ways, through faith, to look at the way Jehovah directs our efforts. We can't speak for others, but we know that we can rightly have faith in this "direction" even if it doesn't lead to a perfect outcome. People pray for a spouse, find one, and just know it was Jehovah's will at the time. People are about to make a terrible life choice and are steered in another direction. A driver of a car may swerve to avoid a person and hit a tree, unharmed. Not a perfect outcome, but it was still good "direction." When Russell moved away from some strongly entrenched traditional church doctrines, he may have steered into a few problems, too.

It should be clear that the anarchy of World War I had nothing to do with the predictions about an end of the Gentile Times.
This is why we regularly need to quote a worldly newspaper that misquoted the prediction instead of quoting our own Watch Tower publications when we speak about what was predicted "decades in advance."
*** it-1 p. 135 Appointed Times of the Nations ***
It is a historical fact worth noting that, on the basis of the points and evidence above presented, the March 1880 edition of the Watch Tower magazine identified the year 1914 as the time for the close of “the appointed times of the nations” (and the end of the lease of power granted the Gentile rulers). This was some 34 years before the arrival of that year and the momentous events it initiated. In the August 30, 1914, edition of The World, a leading New York newspaper at that time, a feature article in the paper’s Sunday magazine section commented on this as follows: “The terrific war outbreak in Europe has fulfilled an extraordinary prophecy. For a quarter of a century past, through preachers and through press, the ‘International Bible Students’ . . . have been proclaiming to the world that the Day of Wrath prophesied in the Bible would dawn in 1914.”  

Russell's view was clearly stated in "Studies in the Scriptures" Volume II, (The Time Is At Hand) under the heading:
STUDY IV      **     THE TIMES OF THE GENTILES   **    What are Gentile Times?
The following are excerpts from this chapter in the book:
During this interval, the dominion of earth was to be exercised by Gentile governments; and Israel, both fleshly and spiritual, have been and are to be subject to these powers until their time is expired. . . . . . . Thus, while Israel was waiting and hoping for the promised dominion of earth, . . . the desire for universal empire became general among other nations. . . . It will be established gradually, during a great time of trouble with which the Gospel age will close, and in the midst of which present dominions shall be utterly consumed, passing away amid great confusion. The above was written at a time when Russell still taught that the time of trouble would completely END in 1914, and 1914 initially was seen as the first year of peace "the end of the time of trouble" following the great chaos and confusion of the trouble as the Gospel age closed in 1914.
In this chapter we present the Bible evidence proving that the full end of the times of the Gentiles, i.e., the full end of their lease of dominion, will be reached in A.D. 1914; and that that date will see the disintegration of the rule of imperfect men. And be it observed, that if this is shown to be a fact firmly established by the Scriptures, it will prove:
Firstly, That at that date the Kingdom of God, for which our Lord taught us to pray, saying, "Thy Kingdom come," will begin to assume control, and that it will then shortly be "set up," or firmly established, in the earth, on the ruins of present institutions. Secondly, It will prove that he whose right it is thus to take the dominion will then be present as earth's new Ruler; and not only so, but it will also prove that he will be present for a considerable period before that date; because the overthrow of these Gentile governments is directly caused by his dashing them to pieces as a potter's vessel (Psa. 2:9; Rev. 2:27), and establishing in their stead his own righteous government. Thirdly, ... Fourthly, It will prove that from that time forward Jerusalem shall no longer be trodden down of the Gentiles, but shall arise from the dust of divine disfavor, to honor; because the "Times of the Gentiles" will be fulfilled or completed. Fifthly, It will prove that by that date, or sooner, Israel's blindness will begin to be turned away; because their "blindness in part" was to continue only "until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in" (Rom. 11:25), or, in other words, until the full number from among the Gentiles, who are to be members of the body or bride of Christ, would be fully selected. Sixthly, It will prove that the great "time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation," will reach its culmination in a world-wide reign of anarchy; and then men will learn to be still, and to know that Jehovah is God and that he will be exalted in the earth. (Psa. 46:10) . . .  But the Lord's Anointed and his rightful and righteous authority will first be recognized by a company of God's children while passing through the great tribulation--the class represented by m and t on the Chart of the Ages (see also pages 235 to 239, Vol. I); afterward, just at its close, by fleshly Israel; and ultimately by mankind in general. Seventhly, It will prove that before that date God's Kingdom, organized in power, will be in the earth and then smite and crush the Gentile image (Dan. 2:34)--and fully consume the power of these kings. Its own power and dominion will be established as fast as by its varied influences and agencies it crushes and scatters the "powers that be"-- civil and ecclesiastical--iron and clay. So, the Watch Tower's view of "The End of the Gentile Times" referred to the crushing and scattering of all "powers that be" both governmental and religious powers BEFORE October 1914, fully consuming the power of the kings of the earth so that FLESHLY Israel's rulership from Jerusalem could quickly fill the void and fill the need for order in a time of complete world-wide anarchy. Fleshly Israel would, of course, be helped and guided by blessings flowing from the heavenly portion of God's kingdom government, and his approval and blessing upon the government of fleshly Israel. 
Recognizing God's lease of power to these worldly or Gentile governments, we know, not only that they will fail, and be overthrown, and be succeeded by the Kingdom of Christ when their "times" expire . . . . Christ's Kingdom cannot take the control, though it will be organizing and preparing to do so in the few years which close the Gentile Times, while these kingdoms will be trembling, disintegrating and falling into anarchy. . . . 
In view of this strong Bible evidence concerning the Times of the Gentiles, we consider it an established truth that the final end of the kingdoms of this world, and the full establishment of the Kingdom of God, will be accomplished near the end of A.D. 1915. . .
Be not surprised, then, when in subsequent chapters we present proofs that the setting up of the Kingdom of God is already begun, that it is pointed out in prophecy as due to begin the exercise of power in A.D. 1878, and that the "battle of the great day of God Almighty" (Rev. 16:14), which will end in A.D. 1915, with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership, is already commenced.
It should also be noted that the emphasis on Jews returning to Palestine was a big part of Russell's teaching as the Watch Tower, right up until 1914 was making statements like this:
Another thing we have been expecting is the return of the Jews to Palestine. There is more and more now being said about the Jews returning to Palestine, and more interest is being aroused in the matter. When we first began to draw attention to this subject of the return of the Jews to the Holy land, there was no movement at all of this kind. It has all come since.
Rutherford continued in support of the belief in the Zionist movements in Palestine up until about 1930, notably with the book: "Comfort for the Jews" in 1925.

John saw the future, but Revelation 1 is not yet writing about visions of the future. In fact it is about the past, present and future. In the introduction to Revelation, it is about how the revelation had just been given to John who would write it down. In fact it clearly states that Jesus Christ was ALREADY the Faithful Witness, and was already the "Firstborn from the dead" and therefore already the Ruler of the kings of the earth. In other words, King of Kings. Therefore, he had already made Christians to be a kingdom (v.6). The introduction is to show the current authority of the one who gave him the visions, not his future authority. And I agree, of course, that he was already given "all authority" according to Matthew 28.
(Revelation 1:1-6) . . .A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent his angel and presented it in signs through him to his slave John, 2 who bore witness to the word God gave and to the witness Jesus Christ gave, yes, to all the things he saw. 3 Happy is the one who reads aloud and those who hear the words of this prophecy and who observe the things written in it, for the appointed time is near. 4 John to the seven congregations that are in the province of Asia: May you have undeserved kindness and peace from “the One who is and who was and who is coming,” and from the seven spirits that are before his throne, 5 and from Jesus Christ, “the Faithful Witness,” “the firstborn from the dead,” and “the Ruler of the kings of the earth.” To him who loves us and who set us free from our sins by means of his own blood— 6 and he made us to be a kingdom, priests to his God and Father—yes, to him be the glory and the might forever. Amen.  

Just another small point on #4 before moving on to point #3.
There have also been many times when our publications stated that for several decades in advance of 1914, Russell and his associates predicted that in 1914:
Jesus would return as King, or would begin his presence, or that his presence would begin invisibly in 1914, or that the "time of the end" or "last days" would begin in 1914, or that 1914 would be the beginning of a time of great trouble on the earth. None of those statements are true. And for the last couple decades, these false statements have no longer been repeated in our publications. The only remaining prediction that can rightly be stated as having been predicted several decades in advance is this:
1914 would mark the "End of the Gentile Times" All the latest publications only focus on this one point now, since it is generally admitted that, long after 1914, we still taught that:
Jesus had returned as King in 1878, had begun his presence in 1874, that the invisible presence in heaven had begun in 1874 and the visible effects upon the world would begin to be seen just after 1914, and that the "time of the end" had begun in 1799, and that 1914 would be the END of the great trouble on the earth, not the BEGINNING. (About a decade before 1914, this last idea was adjusted to push the time of trouble before 1914 to a time beginning in October 1914 and ending around or just after 1915.) But now that the teaching is better grounded in the idea that the prediction was that 1914 would be the "End of the Gentile Times" it would be good to know if we are talking about the same belief.
It's not the same.
The End of the Gentile Times referred to the fact that Palestine would see an Israeli government beginning in 1914 because the governments and institutions of the Gentile kings and governments would all collapse during a period of several months beginning in October 1914 with some likely holding on until the end of 1915.
The expression End of the Gentile Times, was the equivalent of saying that the non-Gentile Kings have had their day. The U.S. government was therefore set to collapse within months of October 1914. The government of Great Britain would also collapse. There would be no more Russian government, no more Chinese government, no more Mexican or Canadian governments. No League of Nations, no United Nations, no more banks, no more "Wall Street." This all collapses in the 1914 time period, because all gentile governments and institutions would collapse with only a blessing on the Israeli government in what is now Palestine. 
In Russell's view the blessings on the earth would come through the fact that true Christians would make up Christ's bride and rule simultaneously from heaven while the Israeli government ruled from earth out of the city of earthly Jerusalem.
It was a true Zionist movement, which is why the primary magazine was called Zion's Watch Tower.

Actually, I think you are engaging in exaggerated thinking again. I am surely one of many who is very concerned. But not all of us wish to speak up. It's not our nature. The kind of person who goes online to look at a forum such as this is probably already showing a level of concern about others, and the possibility that not all is right and that this could hurt others.
I'm sure there are several here who are also concerned about people like me, too, and they show it by speaking up to make sure that I don't go too far in pushing a view that could stumble others. But if you look closely, almost everyone here, even those most active in defensive of the GB, will show signs of not being 100 percent in agreement with all the current teachings. I'm sorry he's not here to defend himself, but even the famous Allen Smith spoke of ideas he had that he might send in to the Watchtower Society that would adjust a certain defense of their chronology. He even spoke of having addressed a question related to Mexico/Malawi to Raymond Franz about a claim in his book. So I think you are seeing different kinds of Witnesses on this forum that you weren't seeing in your congregation. Hopefully, if you were not satisfied with the level of effort in "making sure of all things" in your own congregation, you might find it in a loosely webbed community such as this. I see a lot more interest in scripture, prophecy, and world events here than I see in the average Witness in the Hall. I think a lot of the interest shows up as "crazy" speculation, but I'm sure that's how my own interests show up to others, too.
Indeed, it's probably a rare thing in most situations. But it has already happened under severe us vs. them circumstances. And I'm sure that as a group we are beyond the majority when it comes to trust of one another, the ability to work with other races, nationalities, and material classes.
(Romans 5:7) 7 For hardly would anyone die for a righteous man; though perhaps for a good man someone may dare to die. I know it's probably not quite as far ahead of others as some of us would like to think, but I've stayed with Witnesses all over the world that I barely knew, and vice versa. I've trusted many Witnesses with material things, and they with me. I hardly give a second thought to the idea of trusting another Witness. (Yes, I know. Please start another thread if you wish to bring up how trust can lead to child sexual abuse.)
I see an unusually successful attempt to show love to others among millions of other persons. It's refreshing to meet and greet others with so much in common, and invariably find people we know in common.
The Revelation book is still very much available on JW.ORG, WOL and the WT-LIB CD/DVD, also available online in desktop format. It's still the truth that these explanations are not considered infallible.
I'm sure much of it will prove false, just as most of everyone's explanation of Revelation in the entire world has proved false when the time for fulfillment of those explanations finally came. We just have to learn not to speculate unless we label it as speculation.
There is a difference in believing that you have a terrible and awesome responsibility, having been asked and assigned to work on the Governing Body, and "pretending" to be God's faithful slave. It's a traditional concept among most JWs that the GB represent the rest of the anointed and that this is Jehovah's only arrangement that makes sense. The types of persons on the GB who ask others to join them as replacements and helpers are exactly the types of persons who also think this is the only arrangement that makes sense - and that they shouldn't even consider the possibility of another arrangement because it would be 'doubting' Jehovah. So it never happens that they are actually 'pretending' they are just believing.