Gnosis Pithos

The FACT was, they were GUILTY of sedition, as defined by law.
When the "Great War", later renamed World War One was over, and won ... nobody cared anymore.
You don't see much anymore,  bumper stickers reading "HILLARY 2016 -  for prison."
 

The Society had trouble translating the NWT from English to Klingon, because there was no concept of "mercy" in the Klingon Language.
 

Go to Youtube and google "12 hours dog barking".
Play this LOUD when you leave the house.

Perhaps a technical point, but the Watchtower Officers during WWI were charged and convicted of sedition against the United States of America ... because they were GUILTY of sedition against the United States of America when at WAR.
If you park in a no parking zone, and your car gets towed away ... don't blame it on Satan.

Yes. We have long held onto the tradition that the Parousia is invisible and covers a period of time. We have said it is not the same as the final set of judgment events referred to as the coming/advent/revelation/manifestation. It is interesting then, that all these scriptures can be just as easily explained (perhaps even more easily explained) by proposing that the original speakers of "New Testament Greek" knew what the word Parousia meant. The Greek "New Testament" Bible was translated into Latin, Syriac, Aramaic and Coptic from the original Greek while koine Greek was still being spoken as a living language. Also, some of the early "Church Fathers" whom we often quote in our publications, spoke some of these languages in addition to Greek.
So while it would be a bit off topic to turn this into another full-fledged discussion of Parousia, I find it interesting to notice that a sensible explanation of this verse about Peace and Security can be seen to fit Jesus words, rather than contradict them. I had even noticed a tendency to make them say quite the opposite of what they actually say, and this is a direct result, I think, of our conflicted traditional doctrine about the Parousia. Here's an example:
Notice how this is almost an opposite interpretation of the one that fits the context. (Where Paul parallels the idea of people taking note of "Peace and Security" with the idea that the end will come as a surprise the them, without warning, just a thief in the night.) But it is opposite because we are also taught that it was Satan's anger in 1914 at having "a short period of time" that caused WW I to rage out of control. WW II was even worse than WW I. And we half-expect a WW III to begin escalating as a way to explain the fact that the wars since WW II seem almost mild by comparison (to some). We think, how can this be if Satan must surely have an even shorter period of time now than he had in 1914. If we were right about WW I then Satan should be starting 10 times as many wars just as big as WW I and WW II.

I've seen the same many times. Part of it is undoubtedly based on the possible pretension that the verse speaks of a "CRY" of Peace and Security, and that exclamation point that the NWT puts at the end of it. The Bible says nothing about a "cry" of Peace and Security. There is no reason to make it a quotation or put an exclamation mark after it.
If this were true, then this would be a sign of the parousia, which contradicts the fact that the parousia comes as a thief, and a thief does not give a sign before he robs a house.

Don't know whether it's right, but there is a completely different way to understand this verse. You get an idea of it by looking at 1 Thess 5:3 in some other translations:
NLT: When people are saying, “Everything is peaceful and secure,” then disaster will fall on them as suddenly as a pregnant woman’s labor pains begin. And there will be no escape. ESV: While people are saying, “There is peace and security,” then sudden destruction will come upon them as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. NET: Now when they are saying, "There is peace and security," then sudden destruction comes on them, like labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will surely not escape. I think we sometimes get this impression that the final generation of the last days will see almost constant wars and rumors of wars in various places in the world, with very few days of real peace. But then, we seem to figure, that the UN or some political institution or coalition of governments will, for some reason, cry out something to the effect of "Peace and Security!" as if they would like some attention for have finally been instrumental at creating a few weeks of peace amidst the near daily wars around the world. 
But it seems just as likely that the actual meaning, or even the actual translation of the verse should be closer to:
While some people are talking about how everything seems to be peaceful and secure, they will find themselves undergoing sudden disaster, just as unexpectedly as the beginning of a pregnant woman's labor pains. And they won't be able to escape. This is not necessarily a quotation of what they will be saying out loud anywhere. The expression is just one symbolic way of telling us what some people will no doubt be saying and thinking just before the time when Jehovah's judgment day comes upon them just as surprisingly as a thief in the night could come upon them. In context, this is what it seems to be saying. It's about the "PAROUSIA," which is sometimes called the "Day of the Lord" or the "Day of Jehovah." In context, it's about WHAT to expect about the PAROUSIA (presence) and WHEN to expect the PAROUSIA (presence):
(1 Thessalonians 4:15-5:5) . . .For this is what we tell you by Jehovah’s word, that we the living who survive to the presence [PAROUSIA] of the Lord will in no way precede those who have fallen asleep in death [before the PAROUSIA]; 16 because [AT THE PAROUSIA] the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first. 17 Afterward [or, THEN] we the living who are surviving will, together with them [or Greek, AT THE SAME TIME], be caught away in clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and thus we will always be with the Lord. 18 So keep comforting one another with these words. 5:1 Now as for the times and the seasons [of the PAROUSIA], brothers, you need nothing to be written to you. 2 For you yourselves know very well that Jehovah’s day [the PAROUSIA] is coming exactly as a thief in the night. 3 Whenever it is that they are saying, “Peace and security!” then sudden destruction is to be instantly on them, just like birth pains on a pregnant woman, and they will by no means escape. 4 But you, brothers, you are not in darkness, so that the day should overtake you as it would thieves, 5 for you are all sons of light and sons of day. We belong neither to night nor to darkness. Granted, this isn't the way we currently understand it officially, but it fits all the other scriptures just as well. The expression about saying there is peace and security is a parallel to the idea that the Parousia will come as a thief in the night. It will be surprising, and even painful and disastrous. There will be no way to predict it (by pointing out increasing wars and earthquakes and disasters, for example). Therefore Paul had nothing to say to them about the timing of the Parousia (the times and seasons) -- 1 Thess 5:1. 
This matches the idea that Jesus gave when he said that people would be going on about their daily routines, two men in a field, two women at a grinding mill, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage just as they were in Noah's day. Until suddenly the judgment event (parousia) came upon them as if without any warning.
Peter was saying the same thing when he said that people would ridicule the belief that the Parousia was coming, because things seemed to be going on as they always had been. Peter didn't say that the answer would be that the Parousia was really there all along but just invisible. Instead Peter said:
(2 Peter 3:5-7) 5 For they deliberately ignore this fact, that long ago there were heavens and an earth standing firmly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God; 6 and that by those means the world of that time suffered destruction when it was flooded with water. 7 But by the same word the heavens and the earth that now exist are reserved for fire and are being kept until the day of judgment and of destruction of the ungodly people. In other words, they are ignoring the fact that just like in Noah's generation, people also likely ridiculed the fact that there was no evidence of an imminent judgment day, yet that judgment event (parousia) came upon them as quickly as Jehovah released the waters upon them. In the same way the current heavens and earth will exist as they are being kept just as they now exist UNTIL THE DAY OF JUDGMENT (until the Parousia).
 

Mr. Smith,
 
You say the Holy Spirit is Yahweh’s “expression of holiness”, and that this “expression of holiness” as a “separate ‘empowerment’” “was given to Isaiah to receive that that was necessary” (?).
 
Your use of Yahweh instead of Jehovah shows that maybe you are not a JW. Anyway, that is not the issue; how can “an expression of holiness” be given to Isaiah? You carry this idea further by saying, “in Acts 28:25 makes that distinction the “Holy Spirit” becomes separate from YHWH as an action”.
 
Then comes the twist in your reasoning your jump to the assertion that the Holy Spirit is “not the same as a symbolized being” (I do not say this at all) but it is you who said “Yahweh’s Holy Spirit as an expression of holiness it symbolizes the holy spirit as a separate ‘empowerment’”. That to me is circular reasoning and makes no sense, sorry.  
 
The solemnity of Paul’s words in Acts 28 is increased by him indicating that it is the Holy Spirit that spoke by Isaiah the prophet (see also Acts 8:29; 13:2; 21:11).
 
I’d like to ask you a couple of questions if you don’t mind;
 
What capacity of the Holy Spirit is indicated in Rom. 15:30?
 
Heb. 10:29 tells of a fearful sin against the Holy Spirit; What is that sin? <><

Otto,
 
John 14:16;  ἄλλον παράκλητον allos Parakletos
Jesus is also referred to as Parakletos in 1 John 2:1. “Another” like Jesus (John 14:16), is that specific enough for you?
 
Maybe that is not enough, then here is more; in Jesus’ discourse in the upstairs room on the coming of the Holy Spirit He compares the Holy Spirit to Himself as a person over and over again. For example; 
 
John 12:49; “because I have not spoken out of my own impulse, but the Father himself who sent me has given me a commandment as to what to tell and what to speak." (NWT)
 
John 16:13; “However, when that one arrives, the spirit of the truth, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak of his OWN IMPULSE, but what things he HEARS he will SPEAK, and he will declare to you the things coming.” <><

Otto,
 
Are you saying that the Holy Spirit is like a person’s disposition?
 
If so then the Holy Spirit is the disposition of Jehovah, and not a force because you also go on and say “the power of the spirit is the force”?
 
I’m totally bemused, one JW says this, and another says that. <><

Mr. Harley,
 
No I don’t have a problem, “many”, as defined in some dictionaries refers to a large and considerable number. I doubt, in the context of the conversation, that many (a large and considerable number) practicing Catholics are ignorant of their belief system. <><

As was already mentioned by others, the book A&W has a Foreword that might seem a bit confusing. The Foreword contains the following apparent strain of "logic:"
"Truth is stranger than fiction". . . . There was a time when all angels were good. The time came when many of them allied themselves with Satan and became evil, hence called "fallen angels." Woman possesses finer sensibilities than man. She is more susceptible to seductive influences. Satan and his allies have taken advantage of this fact in overreaching woman . . . . Evil angels and bad women have made countless millions mourn. The Bible story of fallen angels or evil spirits is briefly told as follows: . . . God had permitted the angels, prior to the flood, to have supervision of the peoples of earth. (Hebrews 2 :3.) These angels had power to materialize in human form and mingle amongst the human race. Satan seduced many of these angels and caused them to become wicked or fallen ones. They in tum debauched the women descendants of Adam. The materialized angels, called "'sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose." (Genesis 6 :2.) A mongrel race resulted from these fallen angels with the offspring of Adam. . . . The fallen angels or evil spirits were not destroyed in the flood, but imprisoned in the darkness of the atmosphere near the earth. . . . Since the flood these evil angels have had no power to materialize, yet they have had the power and exercised it, of communicating with human beings through willing dupes known as spirit mediums. Thus have been deceived hundreds of thousands of honest people into believing that their dead friends are alive and that the living can talk with the dead. All students, familiar with the Bible teaching concerning spiritism, will read this book with the keenest interest because it shows the method employed by Satan and the wicked angels to debauch and overthrow the human race. The reviser of this book is of the opinion that the original manuscript was dictated to the woman who wrote it by one of the fallen angels who desired to return to divine favor. It is believed that reverential persons now examining the revised edition of this book will have a better understanding of the evil influence about us and be better fortified in the Lord's word and grace to shield and protect themselves from these evil influences. Spiritism, otherwise named demonism, is working great evil amongst men. It should be studiously avoided. To be forewarned is to be forearmed. Hence this publication. Let's break that down a little more simply:
Woman . . . is more susceptible to seductive influences [of fallen angels]. Satan and his allies have taken advantage of this fact in overreaching woman . . . . Since the flood these evil angels have had no power to materialize, yet they have had the power and exercised it, of communicating with human beings through willing dupes known as spirit mediums. . . . . The reviser of this book is of the opinion that the original manuscript was dictated to the woman who wrote it by one of the fallen angels who desired to return to divine favor. . . . Spiritism, otherwise named demonism, is working great evil amongst men. It should be studiously avoided. To be forewarned is to be forearmed. Hence this publication. Was this strain of logic part of the reason that the book is called "Angels and Women"? Was it implied that the author, a woman, might have been more susceptible to the dictation of a book from a fallen angel? Or was it that the woman author had a book dictated to her by a fallen angel and never noticed that this is what was happening? The person promoting the book through the Watch Tower Society's publication "Golden Age" had said that "even demons sometimes tell the truth." But how did they know that this particular fallen angel was always telling the truth? And if he was always telling the truth, why did the book have to be revised in literally HUNDREDS of places. Why is it that the book didn't know about the version of the doctrine Russell had accepted about the earth's "water canopy"? Why did it have to be revised to remove the race of black dwarfs? It's almost always possible to figure out the reasons for the updates in terms of special doctrines that Russell believed in, that the author had accidentally contradicted by not being aware of Russell's doctrines.
It's important to notice, I think, that the reasoning about being dictated by a fallen angel is circular, and proven even more so by later statements. The author of the book never claims or hints that the book was dictated by a fallen angel. Why did the promoters of A&W think it was dictated this way? Because they believed that angels could communicate this way, and that the book had many things correct from their own point of view, which must therefore have come from a fallen angel.
The fallen angel was just another character that the author had created in her book. People have written novels where Judas is a more fully developed character whom we are supposed to sympathize with. Gnostics wrote books 2,100 years ago that created sympathy for the Devil and made Jehovah look like the bad guy (the arbitrary trickster). It's common to create an unlikely hero in modern books and movies, so that we are meant to root for a mobster or an assassin. The original author here only did what many authors do in order to make a story compelling and interesting. I think we can easily assume that the "dictation" part was simply made up out of whole cloth by the promoters of the revised version. But the revisions make me wonder if even they believed it was true.
There are really a lot of problems with this Foreword. I skipped the part where it says that:
A number of years ago Mrs. J. G. Smith published a novel entitled Seola. She claims to have been impelled to write it after listening to beautiful music. She made no pretense of a knowledge of the Bible. Yet many of her sayings are so thoroughly in accord with the correct understanding of certain scriptures that the novel is exceedingly interesting and sometimes thrilling. Parts of this have already been commented upon. "She claims to have been impelled to write it after listening to beautiful music." This is not a claim about anything more than any common writer might claim. Some authors use silence, others use jazz or classical music. The word "impelled" is thrown in just to sound a bit more mysterious. "She made no pretense of a knowledge of the Bible." This, too, was just made up as a way to make it more mysterious sounding. It's like saying that some anonymous Bible translators made no pretense of having any knowledge of the Biblical languages, and that this must prove that the translation is superior in some mysterious way. The author may have done a lot of homework on the Biblical subject and obviously used a lot of imagination too. But the main thing to notice is that no one says that the author claimed NOT to have a lot of knowledge of the Bible accounts. This is quite different than merely noting that the author never bragged about her knowledge. So there is nothing "exceedingly interesting" or "sometimes thrilling" unless the promoters actually believed they were reading "secret knowledge" or "new light" that they thought was coming from a true source.
The Foreword next contains the words:
The greatest Bible scholar of modem times read this book shortly before his death. To a close personal friend he said: "This book, if revised according to the facts we now know concerning spiritism, would he instructive and helpful." This does not say that Russell ever thought the book was dictated. If he had, this would have been an important point to the promoters. Instead, it only says that it was the opinion of the "reviser." But calling the unnamed "Russell" the greatest Bible scholar of modern times is probably at least partially intended to compare the complete lack of Bible knowledge imputed to the woman author. Also, Russell apparently discovered or at least finally read the book as late as 1916 or shortly before. This would explain the 1924 publishing date of the revision. I read somewhere where a Bible Student thought he read it back in 1878 but that was probably a misunderstanding about whether Russell was a friend of the original author. (Another Bible Student does not think Russell ever had anything to do with the book.) But it should also be noticed that the book was supposed to be revised "according to the facts we now know about spiritism." This does not seem to have anyhing to do with the actual revisions, which were apparently only made to avoid distracting from OTHER Watch Tower teachings. None of the revisions had anything to do with an undestanding of spiritism. And as said above, any changes to the "dictation" would only indicate that they never really believed it was dictated by a completely honest fallen angel anyway.
After looking at a lot of the revisions, I think I can guess what was behind them and behind the whole idea of the "dictation" angle. But I've said enough on this part of the topic.

I'm not sure why you are still so concerned about this part of the discussion. I don't know if you ever noticed that I still have never accused Russell of universalism. All I said was:
Russell apparently came pretty close to believing in "universal salvation" and this would include a number of fallen angels according to his thinking. He seemed sure that Adam, although perfect, would be resurrected to an opportunity to eternal life I'd be happy to change the words "pretty close" to "Russell apparently came a little closer than most of us realize to believing in universal salvation, even though he was still not a true and complete believer in universal salvation." By this I mean that some of us would probably be surprised that Russell ever made statements claiming that fallen angels might be redeemed, or even that Adam himself would be brought back to life on earth. I do think these ideas are related to the ideas of "universal salvation.' Perhaps you think there is no relationship. That's OK too. I just thought that the point should be made. I appreciate that you would have used different words to make the point. Of course, you might not agree with the point, and that's OK, too. Remember that just about everything said here is just an opinion.
The point I'm trying to figure out is how and why a book of fiction was able to confirm Bible history. Could Mark Twain have written a really good story about lepers in Jesus' day that somehow confirmed that the Bible was right about Jesus curing lepers? If Russell or Brenneisen or Woodworth or someone else had read Mark Twain's book and promoted it, would that have somehow meant that it had confrmed the Bible's accounts?
Why would I do that? I still don't believe it's even likely that Russell accepted spiritism in any form. I don't believe he realized that the influence from pyramidologist became a form of divination. I'm not even sure that Russell thought this book was dictated by a fallen angel. I certainly never thought it was, no matter what the Watch Tower publications claimed about it in 1924.
Not sure where or why you would get that either. I think that authors often come up with interesting angles most of us would never think of, and a lot of these ideas could make the Bible accounts make more sense. These extra-Biblical authors aren't necessarily right, but their speculations might just allow us to see something in the original account we hadn't seen before. But no extra-Biblical speculations -- yours, mine, or even some brilliant author's -- should be given special "credence" just because we think they got their information from some spirit or some claimed source of inspiration.
You can go on all you want about Russell rejecting Universalism. It has nothing to do with my point, which is based on what Russell claimed to believe, not the label you are arguing about. I've known for 40 years that Russell rejected Universalism several times. This is why I never claimed that he accepted Universalism. My point was about how he had accepeted something pretty close to universalism, in my opinion. At least your statement above shows that you are aware that this has nothing to do with present JW understanding.
No. That's still false. My argument was that Russell made clear statements that he thought fallen angels could repent and get back into Jehovah's favor. My secondary, supporting argument was Russell also made clear statements that Adam would be brought back to life on earth for an opportunity for everlasting life. Labels we might or might not put on such types of argumentation are still irrelevant.

You are right. It's a fascinating question. I can't say that you are wrong, but the Watch Tower publications now say that his reason for preaching was not "good news" but a proclamation of his victory which would be about the same as an announcement of their impending adverse judgment.
*** it-2 p. 674 Preacher, Preaching ***
What was the objective of Jesus’ preaching “to the spirits in prison”?  At 1 Peter 3:19, 20, after describing Jesus’ resurrection to spirit life, the apostle says: “In this state also he went his way and preached to the spirits in prison, who had once been disobedient when the patience of God was waiting in Noah’s days, while the ark was being constructed.” Commenting on this text, Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words says: “In I Pet. 3:19 the probable reference is, not to glad tidings (which there is no real evidence that Noah preached, nor is there evidence that the spirits of antediluvian people are actually ‘in prison’), but to the act of Christ after His resurrection in proclaiming His victory to fallen angelic spirits.” (1981, Vol. 3, p. 201) As has been noted, ke·rysʹso refers to a proclamation that may be not only of something good but also of something bad, as when Jonah proclaimed Nineveh’s coming destruction. The only imprisoned spirits referred to in the Scriptures are those angels of Noah’s day who were ‘delivered into pits of dense darkness’ (2Pe 2:4, 5) and “reserved with eternal bonds under dense darkness for the judgment of the great day.” (Jude 6) Therefore the preaching by the resurrected Jesus to such unrighteous angels could only have been a preaching of judgment. It may be noted that the book of Revelation transmitted in vision to John by Christ Jesus toward the close of the first century C.E. contains much about Satan the Devil and his demons as well as their ultimate destruction, hence, a preaching of judgment. (Re 12-20) Peter’s use of the past tense (“preached”) indicates that such preaching had been done prior to the writing of his first letter. I don't see anything specifically problematic about the current explanation, but as I said I can't say that you're wrong either.

This is the final part of the discussion of the December 3, 1924 advertisement for the "Angels and Women" book where the Golden Age responds to the two letters:
One letter showed concerns about the spiritistic origin of the book and one whole-heartedly endorsed it. The reply is shown in full:
As expected by the order and content of the letters, the Society was going to repeat its current stance and offer a small (dismissive) defense to take care of the slight objection.
We do apparently learn that it was revised under Russell's supervision, but Woodworth (the Golden Age) editor has also claimed that Russell was supervising every aspect of the work since 1916 from beyond the grave (beyond the vail/veil). So we don't really know if Brenisen (Brenneisen) started work on this before 1916 or not. (Later we'll see a reason to believe that Woodworth is referring to Russell supervising the revision after he died: 1916 through 1924.) 
The connection to "The Vow" would seem to be obvious. But note that the answer is that this book is no more wrong than to read books by the "faithful and discreet slave" on the subject of spiritism. Perhaps it was the added appendix with scriptural citations that made this rationalization possible. The book is claimed to have provided "new light" in that it gives a better understanding of the Devil's organization, and gives a clearer vision of "how" Satan overreached the angels and humans.
The street address is not given, just a post office number. This is thought to be Brenisen's publishing company.

I didn't hear him say anything about it being a "fantastic novel" as quoted by the original poster, but he definitely recommended it  by saying; "You may want to pick it up and read it" and that "it's very interesting reading" .  
I would like to comment on a lot more but this is a busy two weeks for me work wise, and I am able only to read the comments, and  briefly reply with little snippets that don't require a lot of thought (well, I am blonde)...

In the timeline, the initial announcement and promotion in July 1924, was covered,  and now have begun to discuss the response to the book starting in the December 3, 1924 issue of Golden Age. Next is the positive response. (Again don't miss the signs of marketing within the letter itself.)
 
The first sentence by one appreciative reader somehow speaks for how much pleasure and profit this book has provided to "Truth friends." It's about loyalty and faith in God.
But notice that the second paragraph, highlighted in red above, looks completely like a common marketing ploy. It's merely a rewording and reminder of the original advertisement. And a new reminder that this would make a great Christmas gift, just in time. It's partly rhetorical in that there is no such thing as No for an answer. It's just like those radio ads or cheap TV ads where two persons converse:
Mary: Can you give me some advice John? I have Problem X (x=hair loss, loose gums, 12 toes, etc) John: You are in luck, Mary. There is a wonderful new product that takes care of "Problem X" -- perfect for you! Mary: That's great, and I also love the fact that it's on sale now at my favorite pharmacy for buy 2 get one free! [Fake knowledge that Mary didn't really have, but the ad writers thought sounded better from her.] John: Right you are, Mary! And the sale runs from now until Christmas!!! [jingle, ka-ching! jingle, ka-ching! . . . repeat until fade-out] And of course this new Golden Age advertisement in the guise of a letter is setting up the idea that this is a great witnessing tool as a stepping stone (or "gateway" book) to get them to buy real WATCH TOWER publications.
Again this "one" appreciative reader speaks for the many who would like to get more information regarding these items, apparently knowing all along that such orders will actually need to go to the A. B. Abac Company.
In my next post I'll cover the response to these letters in the same issue of the Golden Age.

I still think the timeline is informative in helping us decide just why this book was promoted in this fashion by the Watch Tower Society. We discussed the initial announcment in the The Golden Age, July 30, 1924 p. 702. For some reason this announcement said nothing about what made the book so important or just how it could help them ward off spiritism. This was the second major book that Woodworth promoted, and both of them tried to play off their close association with Charles T Russell for sales. (Finished Mystery and Angels & Women).
But the actual author of the book Seola was never mentioned. Neither was the reviser named, only that it was a close friend of Russell revising a book that Russell had recommended to his friends. According to Brother Herd, Russell endorsed the book and had written the foreward in the book. Russell did NOT write the foreword in the book, and we only learn second or third hand that Russell had endorsed the book. We know of nothing of the book from Russell himself, or even from Russell's lifetime.
In promoting the book through Watch Tower publications, they never mentioned that the original author was a woman, or that they believed she was acting as a spirit medium. Imagine how surprised you would be if you ordered 2 cartons of these books so that everyone in your congregation (a.k.a., "company") could get this new wonderful information about avoiding spiritism. You open up the book and are anxious to get a glimpse of just how "the faithful and discreet slave" had, in effect, posthumously (again!) provided spiritual food to the household of faith. (Russell was still the "faithful and discreet slave" at this point. Woodworth had proposed a new explanation of a parable that would have made Rutherford the fulfillment of a "steward" from a different parable, but it didn't really "stick" yet.)
So you open up the book "Angels and Women" and you anxiously read the foreword:
"dictated to the woman who wrote by one of the fallen angels who desired to return to divine favor" -- Angels and Women, page 5. In other words, it was dictated by a demon, and endorsed just because the Society held the view that some of the demons were honest and wanted to repent. You'd probably be thinking, "It's no wonder they left this part out of the advertisement." And that's no doubt what must have happened. They got letters. The Watch Tower publications didn't mention it again until December 3, 1924, after as much as 6 months of sales.
In the December 3, 1924 Golden Age they went ahead and printed just one letter of concern, and one enthusiastic letter of support, and then defended their continued endorsement of the book. Note how the concerns are cleverly downplayed:
Notice how she (Davis) is not complaining about buying the book under false pretenses, only that she has somehow learned "that it was a book that a fallen angel dictated to a woman" and that this doesn't sound like the right way to shun spiritism. So she'll still buy the book as long as they can assure her that it really had the approval of Pastor Russell and whether it really has the current approval of The Golden Age, in spite of these facts.
Then, of course, they follow this up with a glowing, enthusiastic letter of appreciation.
Anyone who has worked in marketing (I have) knows exactly why it had to be done this way. It's always a matter of handling objections in such a way that you can still produce an action on the part of the buyer. It says:  "You might have heard that this book is not really a book that helps you avoid spiritism, but that it's actually a book that is the product of spiritism. Perhaps this had made you wary about buying the book. Well guess what? You can rest assured that Pastor Russell himself really did endorse this book and the Watch Tower Society still endorses this book. So what are you waiting for? Have no fear! Buy this book today!"
I'll get to the positive letter in the next post.

That's a good and thoughtful question in my opinion. You are right; it's not much different at all. It's easy to make a mistake in looking back over thousands of pages of material that is not all 100% consistent. Even though I never said that Russell was a universalist, it's good that you pointed out this might have been easily misunderstood.
This is also correct. Just because Russell was very interested in the Adventist chronology among other ideas, did NOT make him Adventist. This is why I would also not call him an Adventists, even if several of his beliefs were much closer to Adventism than most other religions of his time.
It's probably an important factor to see what he actually said he believed without so much concern over whether he felt it put him under a certain label or category. It's also possible to "protest too much" that a person does (or does not) belong in a certain category.

By the way, even though the long article you quoted called "Not Ashamed of the Gospel" supports what I was saying about Russell's view, we should be careful about the way in which we might inadvertently claim that early Zion's Watch Tower articles are supposed to exactly represent Russell's thinking at the time. This was from an early May 1881 Watch Tower, and the J.C.S. initials at the end of that article indicates that it was contributed by J. C. Sunderlin who said quite a few things that Russell himself never said. (Calling William Miller, "Father" Miller, for example.)

Ecclesiastes 12:13:
" Now all has been heard;
    here is the conclusion of the matter:
Fear God and keep his commandments,
    for this is the duty of all mankind."
PERIOD!

We have not yet reached the million word mark for this thread, and under the rule of Universal Silliness, we are required to argue these points for the next several years.
I have wasted MUCH of my life devoted to such things, and consider them now ALL .. light entertainment.
Only.
MANY years ago I lamented that Ecclesiastes 12:12 was my favorite scripture, as it expressed the burden of carrying around many heavy bags of sand on my back... loaded on by others.
I am going to do the best I can, hope it's good enough ... sit back, and "watch the show"
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin is irrelevant.
I strongly suspect that soon enough ... too soon ... WE WILL ALL KNOW.

He did. I found a copy. Attached below. Try from about the 6 minute mark through the 9 minute mark.
Also note this picture from Rutherford's book Religion (1940) p.16. Notice the plumes on the head of the giant on the left?

This came from Seola:
"Mounted upon the back of each huge beast was a black dwarf robed in scarlet and holding a guiding wand in his hand. In front and rear were seen a band of gigantic men, clad also in scarlet, with black plumes upon their heads, and marshalled in battle array. These I knew must be the terrible beings of whom my father had spoken, Darvands, the offspring of angels and women..." (Seola - 1878, Page 63,4). The original Seola had two additional races joining humankind, giants and black dwarfs as slaves (because the author was a little bit racist). A&W got rid of the black slaves, and also got rid of all references to storms, clouds, and rain prior to the Flood, even references to clear skies, and changed them all to references about the hard-to-see-through firmament or "water canopy."
Other references to the giants in Seola describe them with headbands (as shown here and still shown in recent publications) and with leaves (shown here) and with talismans (perhaps shown here as what appears to be a rock in the hand).

Your browser does not support the HTML5 audio tag.

A foghorn creates a sound that cuts through the fog. So if you meant that as a compliment, thanks. But that wasn't my intent because I was merely stating something based on Russell's own words. I realize that he distinguished himself from pure "universal salvation" believers. My point was that, if we don't dismiss Russell's own words, we can see that he was much closer to a universal salvation believer than we are (as JWs) and therefore, we shouldn't be surprised that Russell may have expected many demons to repent, even though they were perfect and we tend to view loss of perfection as rebellion. After all, he expected most of humankind to live on the earth, and most Christians (of all varieties) to go to heaven.
Many of us grew up with the very different ideas about salvation that Rutherford started to push and which Fred Franz promoted with numbers attached. Franz gave talks and wrote articles assuring us that BILLIONS would be destroyed forever at Armageddon, even putting the percentage of those who would be slaughtered at 99.9% on the side of Satan. Because of this we might not easily understand that Russell, while not a Universalist, tended to agree with them to an extent quite different from most other Christian religions of his time.
When Russell wrote an article on Universal Salvation he made points that would seem agreeable to many of them: [R 1436,7,8]
UNIVERSAL SALVATION.  "We trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those that believe."--1 Tim. 4:10. It is very generally conceded among Christians that Universalists are the only class of people who have any claim upon, or use for, this text of Scripture; but although we are not Universalists, we also, with Paul, trust in the living God [Jehovah], who is the Savior of all men, especially of those that believe. Thus the Apostle declares that in one sense the salvation which God has promised is to be universal, while in another sense it is to be restricted to believers. . . . But, while thus the Savior of all, there is a particular or special sense in which God is the Savior of those that believe and accept this reconciliation and the opportunity offered of making it everlasting salvation. This salvation is conditional: "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." (Acts 16:31.) This is an unequivocal promise of actual and permanent salvation to every individual who believes, i.e., heartily accepts. To such an one, God not only stands in the attitude of a savior, ready and willing to save, but he will go farther and actually accomplish his salvation; and this is the special sense in which he is the Savior of them that believe. . . . Others, while claiming that God is willing and ready to save all, practically deny it by claiming that the necessary believing must be done in the present life-- which practically excludes three-fourths of the race from any opportunity of sharing in it, since more than that proportion have died without any knowledge of the only name given under heaven or among men, whereby we must be saved. This view contradicts God's Word; because for even one member of the human race to be left unprovided for--to be left without the needful information and opportunity-- would render false the statement which God makes, that he stands as a Savior to all men. The entire matter is clear, however, when viewed from the standpoint of the Plan of the Ages-- which shows that through the redemptive work of Christ God has provided salvation for all from all that "was lost" in Adam; and that the knowledge necessary to the acceptance of this provided gift, while it has reached only the few in the present life, is to be testified to all in due time--in the coming age, in which Christ and his Church shall reign over and bless, with his gracious offer, all the families of the earth. We should keep in mind that Russell (and Rutherford for many years) also had quite a different view of Armageddon than that which developed over time in the Watch Tower publications. Today, many Witnesses fret over what will happen with Hindus and Buddhists, for example, many still thinking that Jehovah must destroy any and all (plus their kids!) who had some opportunity to hear the good news as preached by us, because any who had a good heart condition would surely have rushed over to our side. How else can horses be practically swimming in blood?
Relative to the beliefs we held in the 1940's through the 1970's, Russell was more of a believer in universal salvation.

I notice that none of those quotes you gave indicate that Adam will NOT be resurrected. Most of the time, this idea about Adam being resurrected or at least ransomed and redeemed was "buried" in the expression "Adam and his race" which I will show below. But first there is a very clear expression of it here:
We should not forget that Adam and Eve in some respects foreshadowed Christ and the Church. Jesus personally is the great Savior of mankind, whose death constitutes the Ransom-price for the sins of Adam and the entire race. He is to be the Great Life-Giver, or Father of mankind. During His Millennial Reign He will give back earthly life to Adam and as many of his race as will receive it  -- Watch Tower, December 1912, p.373 R.5141 There are others just as explicit as that one, but most of the time, the reason the point is missed is because of the more complex expressions mentioned above, which I will highlight in some of these below:
Under the divine arrangement the redemption of Adam from condemnation of death will ultimately affect all of his race, to the extent of releasing them from the sentence of death, and to the further extent of furnishing them the light, the knowledge and the opportunity of coming into Christ; but it will be only those who will avail themselves of this privilege, and come into Christ, that will be made alive, in the full, proper sense of that word--lifted up out of death completely. (F698 New Creation) Thus, too, Adam was not given an uncounted experience with sin, but for his first transgression was sentenced so completely that nothing short of a ransom could release him from his sin and its penalty, death.  R1261 He who redeemed or purchased back Adam and his race from the sentence of death R1261 No subject occupies a more important place in God's Word than the resurrection, except those two other doctrines so closely identified with it--the ransom, which is the basis of all hope in a resurrection, and the second coming of the Lord to establish his kingdom, under which the fruit of the ransom (resurrection) shall be extended to Adam and his race in general. R1258 The death which Jesus experienced was exactly the same kind as the one which destroyed Adam-- the soul of Jesus died, as the ransom price for the soul of Adam (including Adam's posterity). R4994 it was necessary for Jesus to become "the second Adam" as a perfect man that as the Second Adam he might give his life a ransom-price for the first Adam, thus redeeming him and incidentally all of his posterity. R4556 There is, however, no sentient being in the sense of consciousness, or knowledge, or appreciation of pain or joy, or of any other experience, but the Divine Creator who first gave being has declared that in the case of Adam and his children it is his purpose to provide a Redeemer through whom all may be restored as completely as before they came under the death sentence.   R4657 Could be 100 more, but I think this should suffice for now. Even though Russell was not always consistent with himself, I have never seen a quote from him that could clearly mean the opposite.