JOHN BUTLER

Notice how the shading in the picture goes from blue on the left to a warm yellow-gold on the right.
One could make the argument that those people with a blue background have a colder relationship with God, or else are lacking light; whereas those in the gold have stepped out into the warm sunlight of God's favor. In this way, they don't have to say that they outright disapprove of the more "worldly" dress code, they can just hint that God disapproves of it.
WT engages in a lot of subliminal messaging. It is very sinister.

A typical copy/saved screen straight off the website of Jehovah’s Witnesses to prove the whole suit and tie thing? I can tell you this, during your absence in July, I have been to Africa and I will educate you on the way people dress there and so forth.
You can literally go to the website and wait a few seconds (or click the arrow), this same image appears on their little slideshow. It should occur to you that JWs (well you use to be one so how did that one slip through the cracks) are Evangelist, preachers, this guy clearly traveled to the farmland village and does not live there.
@TrueTomHarley He pulled the image directly from the jw.org site's slideshow.... Anyone who pulls something from a main page that fast and easily is a classic move, if I may add.
Africans in the city, which is not a village or shanty town as I said, there are those who take up items sent to Africa referred to as the Mitumba, the term in Swahili which literally meaning bundles, and this is usually referred  to plastic-wrapped packages containing used clothing donated by people in wealthy countries, moreover, the term is also applied to the clothing that arrives in these bundles, I’ll even post you an image below so you can understand and see for yourself, such as yourself who has most likely never been to Africa.


Like I said, you do not see such things such as suits and tie wearing persons in villages and shanty towns, for Mitumba is usually received in cities, for example, Tanzanian city of Dar es Salaam and several other cities, that are obviously not shanty towns or villages, as I have said already – unless, Mr. Butler, you have something more to share of suits and ties being in high use in villages and shanty towns, I am all ears and eyes. In addition, Mitumba are normally used and or seen worn by people in interior parts of Africa, not villages, not shanty towns.
Most of the Mitumba originates in developed countries, like the United States, often comes from non-profit organizations, such as The Salvation Army and or anything of the like, granted Mitumba is often in high quantities when received by these non-profits.
As for my experience, no one in farmlands and or such villages wear suit an ties, granted in the type of work they endure on a daily basis and or daily activities. Those who do live within the city and often travels through villages and or these small areas in parts of Africa, an example would be when I was in Kampala, there is people having fashionable things, however when you go to Nansana, you see very, very little, and nowhere in that area people is wearing a suit and tie whenever they have ceremonies and the like there, they use their traditional African attire – no one wore a suit and tie, as for me, I was wearing an African Mud-Cloth Poncho, it is not a suit an tie attire at all.
If you have no idea what that is, IÂ’ll show you an image:


If you must know, I wore this when traveling and to the wedding I went to while I was there, when I ran into people who wanted to know what the Bible is, I was wearing a casual, but loose dress shirt and black pants, with sandals.
So I’ll ask you since I won’t get an answer from Ryan, I want you to show me exactly people in shanty towns and or villages, you can throw in the farmlands and rural places outside of the city as to where someone in said country is sporting a suit and tie, let’s throw in bowties also for fun. Otherwise the response still stands: As last time I checked, also, you do not see people wear suit and ties in a shanty town or rural village, the major will most likely stick to modest clothing in their village.
But what can be said is passerbys usually come in from the city, by foot, by bike and or vehicle ride, such ones do not live in these small rural villages and or farmlands.
Then that should have been spoken of from the very beginning, your glass of water tipped over on to yourself, Butler.
Tell me something I don't know. Because of non-profit organizations within western societies that sell used clothes to for-profit in Africa, Mitumba is refereed to as White Man's clothes, there is a slang term for it, but it is not a good one, moreover, it is very common in parts of Africa, but it is solely in prominent use in the cities. 
As for suits, it goes way far back then that, for suits originated with the British, if my memory serves me correctly.
I also suggest paying the Mother Land a visit. Not only I enjoyed myself but I learned more about my people's roots. For you, I know it would be a history lesson and perhaps something to tell the family and friends.

" "[Jehovah] kindly asks us to trust in him.  " Yes of course. 
But do not get mixed up. The words are,  JEHOVAH kindly asks us to trust in HIM. 
The words are NOT  trust in the GB of JW org.  

*** 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.  

Dude you are a red herring! I agree with some of your most basic ideas, but listing all this stuff serves no basic purpose but to create noise. We were told to search for the sign in our day. That is what they were supposed to do. Poor and bad interpretations in the past have little to say about the credibility of the current interpretations!

It's a brilliant notion. It is pretty much what everyone's mother used to say: "If you can't say anything nice, [constructive] don't say anything." We are too much of the '60 Minutes investigative reports' generation, ever imagining we have blown the cover off some scheme or other. 

Sometimes they say "we do not know." I believe they have said it with regard to the interior rooms, for example. Tell @JOHN BUTLER Someone find the quote, please.

I agree with you @Srecko Sostar. I could not go into the ministry now even if i were still a JW. 
How could a person's conscience allow them to teach something that they know is wrong, or that they do not believe themselves.. 
 

JW members, both, former and present, often come to the conclusion that some WT doctrines are very important, and some are less important for everyday spiritual health and/or survival of Armageddon. For some doctrines they think how they are not so important for "survival", for faith, for personal relationship to JHVH, for own or congregational life. And they are right in such thinking. But, WT view on worldwide Unity of God's people aka JWorg is a little different about this idea/s. To support idea how is good to be in step with particular teachings, even not "so important" from members view, GB using some phrases as; "be faithful in small things", "obey every instructions from GB even you don't understand why", "trust GB because JHVH trust them" and similar.
That is exactly what happens with a "overlapping generation". This interpretation is certainly a great nonsense, which is the product of mind of one or several people who have had to defend the position of previous WT Bible scholars/Doctrinal Inspectors, GB/FDS members, and to defend the possible meaning/s about Jesus' words on the "X Generation" and the anticipated "End of the World."
The teaching of this type, is one of characteristically teachings for such a kind of religion that is largely (if not entirely) based on Armageddon and the Reward with eternal life. The religion/movement (Bible Students) began with the prediction that the end is near. So, all efforts was been putted for "warning" other people about need to accept Jesus and JHVH. And this efforts is also attribute for JW today. 
The frequent announcements of the nearness of the end and the presentations of "evidences" to supporting it, does not stop until today. Evidences are always of the same kind, expectations are also the same, .... the time that passes without the fulfillment of expectations and beliefs means nothing, because time is eternal. If it did not happened today, then it will happen tomorrow. You just have to wait, and to remember how "many faithful people from past waited also for the fulfillment but not meet promises. So, you as JW can comfort yourself with same logic - It will be tomorrow.
  
This meaningless "overlapping" thesis, serve only to put the patch on the doctrinal hole, and correcting, fixing past misconceptions .... and to bring new hope for travelers traveling on a WT boat on which water enters, more and more. To convince yourself that you do not serve God for eternal life, or because of the fast arrival of Armageddon, or how this "irrelevant explanation" of what the generation is, means nothing to you, is good, ...if you really believe that this means nothing to you !! But, is it good to "believe" and to preach to other around you, that this "Concept" is what "Jesus has meant while speaking" about generation, and how God approved all this "truthful" explanations from past to this day !? 

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 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.

And here lies the crux of the matter. This is exactly what the gb wants of the rank and file, for them to believe exactly what we are talking about. You may or may not be the exception and I would be naive to think there are not others who hold the same thoughts, but the fact of the matter is that this is exactly what the gb and the wt wants. They want no one to question their view and not to speak about it to others who may have the same feelings, because then there might be a change that was not from the top down but rather from the bottom up. This would disrupt the ivory tower they have created for themselves. I can tell you are sincere in your words,beliefs and your treatment of others and I share many of the same thoughts as you, I just don't hold the gb's point of view as being from God. 
Thank you JW Insider for all that you contribute here and for helping us to understand the gb point of view when we ask. 

I'm noticing a lack of response from others here.  And I'm noticing that you are 'in a way' admitting the things I've been saying for a long time. 
Thank you for your honesty. However it reminds me of a song, 'The More I learn The Less I know'. 
I seriously cannot understand why God is allowing these things to happen. My conscience would not allow me to go into the ministry with hit or miss teaching that may or may not be true. Especially if i were to offer a Bible study to someone that really wanted the 'Truth'. Only to worry that today's truth is tomorrow's falsehood. 
Where is the true foundation ? We have God and we have Jesus Christ, yes. But then all else seems to be just people's opinions. Even Bible translations cannot be trusted it seems. 

@JW Insider Thank you for your answers.
I cannot understand why God would allow His "chosen faithful slave" to make so many mistakes. It makes no sense to me.
If you were teaching a child any subject, you would teach them properly, give them true good advice, give them accurate information. 
Why would you let them get it all wrong ? What purpose is there in even having an Organisation that carries your name, if you give that organisation false information or allow it to use false information ?  There is no sense, and, there is no LOVE in doing so. 
God is LOVE, I cannot see that He would allow such misguidance in an organisation that HE would have His own name on. 
Yes we know how God allowed the Nation of Israel to go astray etc, but according to some on here, we are so very close to the END that there is no time for all this misinformation and 'mistakes'. 
Some would say it's a testing, but for what ?  Why would anyone want to stay in an organisation that cannot be trusted to teach truth ? 
And, how can anyone go into the ministry with lies, or mistakes ?  Do you think that is really what God wants ? 

Yes Brother Jackson's comment / reply to questioning, has played on my mind a bit sometimes.
I somehow related it to when the disciples reported to Jesus that other people were curing the sick using Jesus' name (I think) and Jesus said something like, 'Leave them alone for those that are not against us are for us'. (I think it's something like that anyway).
Nearly 9pm here in Devon England. My brain is tired. 
Concerning Shiwiii's comment, I knew not to mention certain things inside of the Kingdom Hall for the obvious reasons of 'not causing a division in the congregation', however in the privacy of a brother's home we would often speak our minds to each other. 

Yes Brother Jackson's comment / reply to questioning, has played on my mind a bit sometimes.
I somehow related it to when the disciples reported to Jesus that other people were curing the sick using Jesus' name (I think) and Jesus said something like, 'Leave them alone for those that are not against us are for us'. (I think it's something like that anyway).
Nearly 9pm here in Devon England. My brain is tired. 
Concerning Shiwiii's comment, I knew not to mention certain things inside of the Kingdom Hall for the obvious reasons of 'not causing a division in the congregation', however in the privacy of a brother's home we would often speak our minds to each other. 

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. 

Quote " I'm not judging you, but these questions sound legitimate with an element of true concern for people." 
My reply was "Thank you @JW Insider You are probably one of the very few here that feel that way. I am very concerned."
I quote you "Actually, I think you are engaging in exaggerated thinking again. I am surely one of many who is very concerned."
What I was meaning was that you are one of the few that seem to think that i am concerned for others. Sorry for confusion. 
Yes I'm sure others are also concerned. 

I don't think this doctrine was ever fleshed out, as it were. Russell's focus was on the development of the "high calling" to be Christ's Bride. Edited to add: But the answer was basically "Yes," death to all Christians, but millions of non-Christians might never die. This changed over time of course.

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.

No. He was a lout from the beginning. A rabble rouser. Nobody thought he was Father Christmas. But he capitalized on some very real injustices. The victors of WWI were intent on punishing Germany & did so to such as harsh degree that their economy was crushed & national pride maligned. Hitler vowed to remedy those woes & restore Germany to greatness. He appealed to poverty and wounded nationalism, which works anywhere.
When the axis powers were beaten a second time (WWII) the victors did not repeat that mistake, but endeavored to rebuild the countrys they had demolished.

Curses! Foiled again!
(Honestly, John, you’re suggesting these ideas to me. I’m not thinking any of them out up front.)
In an odd sort of way, I am proud of our “apostates.” Ours are the best. Nobody else’s comes close. 
I would be worried if we didn’t have them. It would suggest not too much difference between the Christian congregation and the overall world.