Srecko Sostar

That is so funny considering the topic you've made here and the length of your first comment. 
You seem concerned about people's attitudes and about people 'grumbling'. 
I'm more concerned about the way JWs bring shame on God and Christ. 
 

Yes indeed. Didn't the Leaders of the Watchtower BLAME the CONGREGANTS  for 'getting it wrong about 1975' 

So, don't be a hammer. Be sensible and look at both sides of every coin. 

You are in good company.
22 “Blessed are you when people hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man. 23 “Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their ancestors treated the prophets.” Luke 6:22-23

I found this quote from a Wt. when researching,
"Third, consider some of our recent refinements in understanding. For example, our clarified understanding of “the faithful and discreet slave,” published in the July 15, 2013, Watchtower, thrilled us. (Matt 24:45-47) It was explained that the faithful slave is the Governing Body, while the “domestics” are all those who are fed spiritually, whether of the anointed or of the “other sheep.” (John 10:16) What a delight it is to learn such truths and to teach them to new ones!  w15 3/15 p. 8-9
One set of scriptures apparently prove that these false prophets are the faithful and discreet slave.  How thrilling!
 
 “You have spoken arrogantly against me,” says the Lord.
“Yet you ask, ‘What have we said against you?’
14 “You have said, ‘It is futile to serve God. What do we gain by carrying out his requirements and going about like mourners before the Lord Almighty? 15 But now we call the arrogant blessed. Certainly evildoers prosper, and even when they put God to the test, they get away with it.’”
Then those who feared the Lord talked with each other, and the Lord listened and heard. A scroll of remembrance was written in his presence concerning those who feared the Lord and honored his name.
17 “On the day when I act,” says the Lord Almighty, “they will be my treasured possession. I will spare them, just as a father has compassion and spares his son who serves him. 18 And you will again see the distinction between the righteous and the wicked, between those who serve God and those who do not.  Mal 3:13-18

JWs have this habit of using David and his grave sin, as an example to excuse their leadership’s sins.  With David though, we have his documented expressions of great remorse spoken to God.  We have no expressions of remorse from any Wt. leader, only their examples of either hiding their sins, or making excuses for them.  I find it ironic that past articles in the Wt. will tell the story of a murderer being “saved” by the organization and he is received with open arms into the congregation. Wouldn't this past murderer be the example of repentance and not the example of sin?
Not so, with David.  He is usually shown up for his sins and never for his extensive documented request to God for repentance.  Likewise, the organization keeps a record of sin on all members, yet God in his mercy will forget our sins – only if we come to him in sincere repentance. 
Sinning against the Holy Spirit, the unforgiveable sin, has been committed by the organization since Rutherford, possibly before. (Matt 12:31) Ray Franz spoke truth, but he was disfellowshipped – considered dead in the eyes of God. (Luke 12:11,12; Matt 10:20) This has happened throughout  Wt’s history to anointed ones who had the Holy Spirit poured into their hearts.  Spiritual blood is on the hands of Wt’’s leadership. (Matt 23:33-36; Rev 17:3-6) Jesus spoke truth and he was killed for it, and they said he had a demon. I have been accused of the same thing here. (Matt 10:25)   It is a twisted concept that the leadership is righteous while unrepentant for their sins, yet any anointed priest who stands for truth and exposes lies, is the unrighteous one.  (Mark 3:28-30)
No, God does not consider the sins of a priest (if Russel was anointed) as forgotten, if he is never repentant before God and apologetic for the damage he has done to those whom he has taught.
No matter how much of what appears to be truth that he may have produced, he is still a bad “tree”.  (Matt 7:15-20)
 
 
https://4womaninthewilderness.blogspot.com/2013/07/what-is-worst-sin-wt-has-done.html

You are strange JWI. As I've said before, you write something then you basically apologise for it. 
We all know that Almighty God, and Christ, read hearts. I cannot imagine God or Christ using Russell, going by what you've written. 
 
Um I don't see much about being humble there. And you seem to have proven that Rusell commited lots of purposeful sin.
What can one say. By what you are telling us, Russell used what was supposed to be, God's way of 'getting His message to people, the Watchtower, to smear his wife's reputation.  What does that say about this man ? 
Um, sounds familiar. The GB come to mind. Real estate comes to mind. 
if they think they might get something else out of it besides financial gain. Yes indeed. 
Well Russell wasn't a JW, but the GB do seem to be like Russell . Self centered in seems. 
 

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

Sorry, but i can witness how some IMPERFECT persons also sin and do not remorse. What is final point of your standpoint when evidence show only this: IMPERFECT individuals can act in two ways - to show remorse and to not show remorse. 
If Bible state that people are made in image of God.....that would mean how PERFECT individuals have same quality - to show same feelings, attitudes as IMPERFECT.
Bible stated this:   The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. Gen 6:6
 
Regret vs. Remorse - https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/stop-caretaking-the-borderline-or-narcissist/201507/regret-vs-remorse
The main difference between Remorse and Regret is that the Remorse is a advanced emotion and Regret is a negative conscious and emotional reaction to personal past acts and behaviours. - https://www.askdifference.com/remorse-vs-regret/
The Difference between Regret and Remorse - https://education.onehowto.com/article/the-difference-between-regret-and-remorse-12141.html
 

This is some proof .. for what? Things not written not exist? 

An Edler once said to me ' Things written in the Bible are there for a purpose, not just to fill up space'.
The overlapping generation is NOT written in the Bible. But the other things are.
The probelm is, the GB / Leaders / helpers of the Watchtower / JW org, just cannot be humble. They cannot just say 'We don't know'.   They are always pretending there is 'new light', which is funny as they now admit that they are not inpsired by God's Holy Spirit. so yes, they destroy their own credibility. 

Yesterday I responded to a months-old comment, here, about putting Charles Taze Russell on a pedestal, and it was under the wrong topic, so I am moving it here, and editing and splitting it into two or three comments because it is so long. The part about "canonizing" refers to the God's Kingdom Rules book,
*** kr chap. 2 pp. 13-14 pars. 3-6 The Kingdom Is Born in Heaven ***
For instance, consider the prophecy of Malachi 3:1: “Look! I am sending my messenger, and he will clear up a way before me. And suddenly the true Lord, whom you are seeking, will come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant will come, in whom you take delight.”  In the modern-day fulfillment, when did Jehovah, “the true Lord,” come to inspect those who were serving in the earthly courtyard of his spiritual temple? The prophecy explains that Jehovah would come with “the messenger of the covenant.” Who was that? None other than the Messianic King, Jesus Christ! (Luke 1:68-73) As the newly installed Ruler, he would inspect and refine God’s people on earth.—1 Pet. 4:17. 5 Who, though, was the other “messenger,” the first one mentioned at Malachi 3:1? This prophetic figure would be on the scene well before the Messianic King’s presence. In the decades before 1914, did anyone “clear up a way” before the Messianic King? . . . Those taking the lead among them—Charles T. Russell and his close associates—did, indeed, act as the foretold “messenger,” giving spiritual direction to God’s people and preparing them for the events ahead. Let us consider four ways in which the “messenger” did so.  
 
I can't help but see that he very carefully and deliberately put himself on a pedestal. It appears to have been his plan from the moment he began spending money to put himself on Barbour's masthead. His publishing career started with material he borrowed and presented as his own, but with added "humility" about how he is just God's servant which soon turned into a very humble way of saying that he was "God's mouthpiece."
It's just that he was so good at 19th century "mock humility" that people truly thought he was humble.
But a good portion of the Bible Students acted in the ways in which we think of certain groups as "cults" today, in a pejorative sense. Many members of the Bible Students worshiped Russell but would never have noticed this, thinking of it as only love for their leader. Russell didn't ask for a high level of control at first, but the format of his interactions with them were mesmerizing, including the way the Watch Tower publications presented ideas. 
The Proclaimers book very clearly admits the "cult" attitudes:
*** jv chap. 6 p. 65 A Time of Testing (1914-1918) ***
Others, on account of their deep respect for Brother Russell, seemed more concerned with trying to copy his qualities and develop a sort of cult around him.
People were naming their first male child after Russell and additional children after his most trusted associates. People were willing to believe constantly changing, contradictory and failing information about when the rapture would occur, when the door of opportunity to heaven was being shut, the "divination" of lengths of the entrails (passages) criss-crossing within the pyramids. Russell could do no wrong. Russell made up stories about his divorce trial that can now be shown to be outright fabrications. But he continued to print letters of praise about himself and letters that called him the "faithful and wise servant." Without a kind of cult following, you can't get away with claiming that you are the one and only faithful and discreet slave, and the one and only mouthpiece of God, and the one and only channel of communication through which the "wise virgins" can prove themselves to be wise and not foolish.
Rutherford, who wanted the high level of control, but without the mesmerizing charisma, was very clear about the fact that Russell was being worshiped. Referring to the attitudes toward Russell, Rutherford said the following, according to the Watchtower (and "Faith on the March" by MacMillan):
*** w66 8/15 pp. 508-509 Doing God’s Will Has Been My Delight ***
Why, brother, if I ever get out of here, by God’s grace I’ll crush all this business of creature worship. The 1975 Yearbook says the same:
*** yb75 p. 88 Part 1—United States of America ***
With the passing of time, however, the idea adopted by many was that C. T. Russell himself was the “faithful and wise servant.” This led some into the snare of creature worship. They felt that all the truth God saw fit to reveal to his people had been presented through Brother Russell, that nothing more could be brought forth. Annie Poggensee writes: “This caused a great sifting out of those who chose to stay back with Russell’s works.” In February 1927 this erroneous thought that Russell himself was the “faithful and wise servant” was cleared up. Of course it was Russell himself who pushed that idea that he alone was the "faithful and wise servant." He was satisfied for years to say it was all true Christians in this role, even while claiming that "meat in due season" came through the channel of the Watch Tower Society. But after about 18 years of publishing such claims in the Watch Tower he finally claimed (in 1896/7) that this role could be only one individual person at a time. He published several letters addressing him as "that Servant, faithful and wise" ["the faithful and discreet slave"] who provides "meat in due season" ["food at the proper time"].
*** yb74 pp. 97-98 Part 1—Germany ***
For that reason Brother Balzereit asked Brother Rutherford for permission to buy a rotary press. Brother Rutherford saw the necessity and agreed, but on one condition. He had noticed that over the years Brother Balzereit had grown a beard very similar to the one that had been worn by Brother Russell. His example soon caught on, for there were others who also wanted to look like Brother Russell. This could give rise to a tendency toward creature worship, and Brother Rutherford wanted to prevent this. So during his next visit, within hearing of all the Bible House family, he told Brother Balzereit that he could buy the rotary press but only on the condition that he shave off his beard. This type of thinking was evidently still going on. Rutherford knew that up until the 1920's pictures of Russell and his close associates were still being sold. (I have a couple from about 1915 with Russell, Rutherford and my great-grandfather.) But this evidently was still going on in 1931:
*** yb74 p. 106 Part 1—Germany ***
Now at the Berlin assembly [1931] he called attention to the many pictures of himself and of Brother Russell that were being sold in the form of postcards or pictures, some of which were even framed. After discovering these pictures at the numerous tables in the corridors around the hall, he mentioned them in his next talk, urging those in attendance not to buy any of them and asking the servants in charge in plain words to remove the pictures from their frames and to destroy them, which was then done. He wanted to avoid anything that could lead to creature worship. Even in one of our most current and recent study books, we have a similar claim about Russell:
*** kr chap. 2 pp. 22-23 par. 32 The Kingdom Is Born in Heaven ***
From within, the organization suffered turmoil as well. In 1916, Brother Russell died at only 64 years of age, leaving many of God’s people in shock. His death revealed that some had been placing too much emphasis on one exemplary man. Though Brother Russell wanted no such reverence, a measure of creature worship had grown up around him. Rutherford himself said this about Russell at his funeral:
"Charles Taze Russell, thou hast by the Lord, been crowned a king, and through the everlasting ages thy name shall be known amongst the people, and thy enemies shall come and worship at thy feet." Then of course, Rutherford approved and praised the importance of a book in 1917, The Finished Mystery, and proudly distributed it until 1932. It said the following (with page numbers, unchecked, as copied from Gruss):
"The special messenger to the last Age of the Church was Charles T. Russell.... He has privately admitted his belief that he was chosen for his great work from before his birth" (53). "Pastor Russell was the voice used. Beautiful voice of the Lord: strong, humble, wise, loving, gentle, just, merciful, faithful, self-sacrificing; one of the noblest, grandest characters or all history...Without a blemish in his character, with the loftiest ideals of God, and the possibilities of man, he towers like a giant, unmatched"'( 125). 'The mind of Pastor Russell was filled with Truth.... The mind of God's steward was as adamant. Adamant is literally, in Hebrew, 'a diamond point"' (383). "In 1878 the stewardship of the things of God, the teaching of Bible truths, was taken from the clergy, unfaithful to their age-long stewardship, and given to Pastor Russell" (386-87). "Then, in 1881, he became God's watchman for all Christendom, and began his gigantic work of witness.... He listened to the word direct from the mouth of God, spoken by holy men of old as moved by the Holy Spirit.(2 Peter 1:21.)... Pastor Russell's warning to Christendom, coming direct from God.... He said that he could never have written his books himself. It came from God, through the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit" (387). "Pastor Russell was the most prolific writer of Biblical truth that ever lived.—Ezek. 9:2,3" (65). "The man in linen" was the Laodicean servant, the Lord's faithful and wise steward, Pastor Russell" (418). "The preaching and writings of Pastor Russell were heard by all classes of believers and unbelievers. It was the voice of Jehovah, represented as almighty to save, that was heard throughout the world" (422). The June 1, 1917 Watch Tower published by Rutherford, says:
"Truly there lived among us in these last days a prophet of the Lord.... Any thoughtful man can interpret prophecy after is has been fulfilled. Pastor Russell interpreted these prophecies twenty years ago...." Throughout the 1920's, the Society began distributing the "Biography of Charles Taze Russell" included with Studies in the Scriptures claiming that Russell himself privately admitted to others that he was the "faithful and wise servant."
 

I remember GB member Dan Sydlik writing or saying in a talk….he had a hard time with brothers trying so hard to be righteous….and said they…just needed to do their best and leave the rest to the ransom."…..

How to use lawyers in court, seems to be their expertise - that and the basic elements of running an earthly organization.  But that is the irony, isn’t it?  Men who have failed to interpret the spiritual meaning of God's word over and over again, are telling JWs that they will teach the pillars of faith from the past.  And that there is no doubt that the leaders will be in a literal heavenly office (using their knowledge of running a corporation on earth) when their Armageddon breaks out.  They, will be exalted over all.  But, about these uninspired men, the leadership said in 1959, An accurate knowledge of the future cannot be gained from such people.”  Wt 1959/7/1 pg 389-390
How then, will they be able to teach those who were “inspired”?  Isa 28:7-10   https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+28%3A7-10&version=LEB    

Does this exposition on the definitions of some words, mean that it is (not) quite normal for JW members to so readily accept the changed definitions in so many GB teachings, which have taken on new meanings in relation to the original ones? Because you say yourself: One way is simply refuse to accept it.

WTJWorg’s explanation is that people need to achieve "perfection" in NW, so that they are then overtaken by the “last test” that will finally prove their faith, devotion to God and give the final answer to the “universal issue”.
Thanks for the comment Witness. Namely, you set a good example with the old patriarchs. But I would add more, if I may. Regardless of past or present faithful people, they prove their faithfulness to God as “imperfect” people. Why then should we prove the same as "perfect"? Well, isn't victory over evil greater and more glorious when you are imperfect than when you are perfect?
On second, about GB member Splane. What special "spiritual truths" would GB members told David or other people from past. Perhaps about "overlapping generation" or "monthly report", "clergy-laity distinction", how to use "lawyers" in Court cases about CSA, "blue envelops", "shunning policy" ...,?? 

WTJWorg’s explanation is that people need to achieve "perfection" in NW, so that they are then overtaken by the “last test” that will finally prove their faith, devotion to God and give the final answer to the “universal issue”.
Thanks for the comment Witness. Namely, you set a good example with the old patriarchs. But I would add more, if I may. Regardless of past or present faithful people, they prove their faithfulness to God as “imperfect” people. Why then should we prove the same as "perfect"? Well, isn't victory over evil greater and more glorious when you are imperfect than when you are perfect?
On second, about GB member Splane. What special "spiritual truths" would GB members told David or other people from past. Perhaps about "overlapping generation" or "monthly report", "clergy-laity distinction", how to use "lawyers" in Court cases about CSA, "blue envelops", "shunning policy" ...,?? 

Does this exposition on the definitions of some words, mean that it is (not) quite normal for JW members to so readily accept the changed definitions in so many GB teachings, which have taken on new meanings in relation to the original ones? Because you say yourself: One way is simply refuse to accept it.

WTJWorg’s explanation is that people need to achieve "perfection" in NW, so that they are then overtaken by the “last test” that will finally prove their faith, devotion to God and give the final answer to the “universal issue”.
Thanks for the comment Witness. Namely, you set a good example with the old patriarchs. But I would add more, if I may. Regardless of past or present faithful people, they prove their faithfulness to God as “imperfect” people. Why then should we prove the same as "perfect"? Well, isn't victory over evil greater and more glorious when you are imperfect than when you are perfect?
On second, about GB member Splane. What special "spiritual truths" would GB members told David or other people from past. Perhaps about "overlapping generation" or "monthly report", "clergy-laity distinction", how to use "lawyers" in Court cases about CSA, "blue envelops", "shunning policy" ...,?? 

WE agree then that people have 'hurt' Almighty God by working against the Holy Spirit.
The ones that did so are the ones that told the Anointed 'not to gather together for prayer or Bible study' Those ones also told the Anointed that the Anointed would be 'working against the Holy Spirit'. 
Those ones also say they are the F&DS and they falsely boast that God and Christ trust them. 
Yes, it quite to clear to see who have insulted Almighty God and Jesus Christ. It is your GB and their helpers.

By using this scriptures i see few things.
1) After Adam made wrong decisions, sin entered into the world in same second. 
2) When Jesus made his decisions and sacrifice nothing changed for human daily life until today. All was stayed the same and his act not brought immediate blessings. 
From the visible consequences (physical and spiritual), we could superficially conclude that Adam’s act caused more far-reaching and immediate consequences if we compare them to what happened after Jesus ’death. The consequence that came from Adam continues. The consequence that came from Jesus has only spiritual aspects and diminishes in the faith and hope of the believers ...... and that is where it ends, for now. 
In such way looking on this two things made as to think more. Comparison of this two man is not so in issue of equality of them, as seems in first moment.
Next.
Adam "became a living person". Jesus became "life-giving spirit". Nothing looks similar or same. Two opposite and different outcome in their case.  
Basics for faith is not in linear interpretations of these events.  
Yes, people will not be saved by doctrines and interpretations, but by faith in Jesus and his sacrifice.
And deeds are related to faith.
If you believe that GB is more important than your faith in Jesus, as they provides guidance as “guardians of doctrine” and as they give their instructions on what deeds you should do to affirm your faith, then it is probably about some “degree of faith” that is marked mostly by literal, physical manifestations. Because of that faith, people go to preach, go to jail, don’t swear, don’t lie, etc. But that doesn’t save them from the “evil one” and doesn’t give them any guarantee for the future.
After "Last Adam" the effect is not seen. Or we took the biblical text too literally. The interpretation that it takes more time to prove a "universal issue" is not very convincing, because it is the life and death of Jesus that should conclude this dispute forever. He is "Last Adam", he is not the penultimate or just one in a series of "faithful people of old". He is milestone, turning point.  

PENITENCE, REPENTANCE, CONTRITION, COMPUNCTION, REMORSE mean regret for sin or wrongdoing. PENITENCE implies sad and humble realization of and regret for one's misdeeds.  absolution is dependent upon sincere penitence  REPENTANCE adds the implication of a resolve to change.  repentance accompanied by a complete change of character  CONTRITION stresses the sorrowful regret that constitutes true penitence.  tearful expressions of contrition  COMPUNCTION implies a painful sting of conscience especially for contemplated wrongdoing.  had no compunctions about taking back what is mine  REMORSE suggests prolonged and insistent self-reproach and mental anguish for past wrongs and especially for those whose consequences cannot be remedied.  thieves untroubled by feelings of remorse 
Feeling or showing regret for something said or done is a prerequisite for reconciliation with those to whom we have erred. Are they in remorse too? Do they show penitence and contrition? etc.
It is not possible to know how any of those who contributed to the misconceptions in the JW organization felt about it. Some who have been involved in past misconceptions have been involved in change, but I don’t think most of them have, but some new people have done so when they came to positions of power.
What about the current creators of delusions? Some of them believe in their delusions because they feel they have offered something better than their predecessors. Or they have to adapt their new delusions to existing concepts with some modifications for several reasons.
Yet, no text in WTJWorg publications, known to me, contains any of the previously described characteristics of someone who is aware of his (individual or collective GB) error. It simply all comes down to a so called “human error” that can happen to anyone. But in most cases (throwing blame and responsibility) it refers to ordinary members who have "misunderstood" something or many things in publications.
The founders of doctrines and interpretations themselves have always found a way to explain their "error" by a lack of sufficient "light" and "knowledge", because then, when they wrote about a topic, there was no "God-given time" to know "real truth". But now, in this very moment when they "clarified" things, it is "true and proper knowledge" that have to be accepted, because it is from God ..... again    
 

By using this scriptures i see few things.
1) After Adam made wrong decisions, sin entered into the world in same second. 
2) When Jesus made his decisions and sacrifice nothing changed for human daily life until today. All was stayed the same and his act not brought immediate blessings. 
From the visible consequences (physical and spiritual), we could superficially conclude that Adam’s act caused more far-reaching and immediate consequences if we compare them to what happened after Jesus ’death. The consequence that came from Adam continues. The consequence that came from Jesus has only spiritual aspects and diminishes in the faith and hope of the believers ...... and that is where it ends, for now. 
In such way looking on this two things made as to think more. Comparison of this two man is not so in issue of equality of them, as seems in first moment.
Next.
Adam "became a living person". Jesus became "life-giving spirit". Nothing looks similar or same. Two opposite and different outcome in their case.  
Basics for faith is not in linear interpretations of these events.  
Yes, people will not be saved by doctrines and interpretations, but by faith in Jesus and his sacrifice.
And deeds are related to faith.
If you believe that GB is more important than your faith in Jesus, as they provides guidance as “guardians of doctrine” and as they give their instructions on what deeds you should do to affirm your faith, then it is probably about some “degree of faith” that is marked mostly by literal, physical manifestations. Because of that faith, people go to preach, go to jail, don’t swear, don’t lie, etc. But that doesn’t save them from the “evil one” and doesn’t give them any guarantee for the future.
After "Last Adam" the effect is not seen. Or we took the biblical text too literally. The interpretation that it takes more time to prove a "universal issue" is not very convincing, because it is the life and death of Jesus that should conclude this dispute forever. He is "Last Adam", he is not the penultimate or just one in a series of "faithful people of old". He is milestone, turning point.  

Appendix
In the Scriptures a Levite alone, not sinners, carved up the body of his concubine into twelve pieces which he sent to all the Israelite tribes, demanding revenge.

Under what circumstances they curse own day of birth? .... says a lot about this issue. 
I hope, You don't think how individual have to curse his birth day every time he/she have problems in life?
Now I get it. "Sinners alone, not saints" going to take higher education and became Lawyers who defending WTJWorg in Court cases. Please, what sort of logic is given in conclusion made by Origen? Who is Origen, that we should listen and accept his explanations?